OFFICIAL REPORT.



The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Southend-on-Sea Gas Bill.

Port of Portsmouth Floating Bridge Bill.

Central London and Metropolitan District Railway Companies (Works) Bill.

Ordered, That the, Bills be committed.

Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, oringinating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Humber Commercial Railway and Dock [Lords].

Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders. Huddersfield Corporation (Lands) Bill,

Read a second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

INDUSTRIES (BRITISH CAPITAL).

Mr. L. LYLE: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will
give the latest information in his possession with respect to the present position of Russian industries, including what has happened to the up-to-date factories which were established before the War by British capital?

The SECRETARY of the DEPARTMENT of OVERSEAS TRADE (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): Owing to the suspension of relations with Russia, no reliable information is available.

Mr. LYLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in certain Government journals quotations have appeared giving these facts as correct, and that the Soviet official journal is quoted?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am aware of what the hon. Gentleman says, but my answer is that no reliable information is available.

FACTORY DISCIPLINE.

Mr. L. LYLE: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received any reports from the politico-economic organ of the Russian Soviet Government showing that, owing to lack of discipline and order in the Russian factories, the works councils and factory committees have been abolished and dictators appointed with unlimited powers over the lives of the workers?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer is in the negative.

FINLAND.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the report that a force of Finnish troops has recently been concentrated on the Finnish-Russian border, with orders to attack Petchenga and Kola; and whether His Majesty's Government will intimate to Finland that any action by them in the Petchenga area will not be countenanced by the Allies?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, the matter has not been considered by the Allied Governments, and His Majesty's Government could certainly not take official action alone in the matter.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Might I ask whether our attitude towards Finland is the same as towards the other border States, as explained by the Prime Minister recently?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: A question on anything contained in a statement of the Prime Minister must be put to the Prime Minister himself.

BRITISH MILITARY MISSION (GENERAL DENIKIN).

Mr. ALLEN PARKINSON: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what assistance or otherwise was given to the North Russian Provisional Government at Archangel after the withdrawal of the British forces; whether this assistance was given with a view to relieving the civil population; and, if so, whether the relief for the civil population will now be continued, or whether, as a result of the withdrawal of the anti-Bolshevik faction, the Archangel population has forfeited any claim to consideration?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No assistance was given to the North Russian Provisional Government at Archangel after the withdrawal of the British forces. The remainder of the question therefore does not arise.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many British officers and men are serving in the Military Mission with General Denikin, K.C.B., including airmen; how long it is intended to retain them with General Denikin; and what is the approximate monthly cost to the British taxpayer?

Mr. ALLEN PARKINSON: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the strength of the British Military Mission still with General Denikin; whether any British officers or men are engaged in fighting, or what other services they are performing; and whether the pay of these officers and men, with separation allowances, pensions, and other charges, is being borne by the British taxpayer?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): From the latest strength return (dated 10th January) 394 officers and 1,529 other ranks are serving on the strength of the British Military Mission with General Denikin. Included in this number are 93 officers and 291 other ranks of the Royal Air Force. A fixed sum of money has been allocated from that approved as a final contribution
to General Denikin for the payment and maintenance of the whole of the Mission, which is being gradually reduced accordingly, and will terminate when this sum has been exhausted.
Owing to the uncertain situation in South Russia, no definite restriction has yet been placed on its size or period of retention, apart from the proviso that the sum allowed for its maintenance is not exceeded. No additional expense will therefore be borne by the British taxpayer on its behalf.
As regards the second part of the question by the hon. Member for Wigan, the duties of the British Military Mission with General Denikin are to keep the War Office in touch with the situation, to supervise the distribution of stores supplied by His Majesty's Government, and to give instruction in technical uses of our munitions of war. So far as is Known no British officers or men have been engaged in actual fighting, with the exception of a few airmen and tank corps personnel who, earlier in the operations around Tsaritsin, asked to be allowed to accompany the Russians whom they had trained.
I observe that the hon. and gallant Member for Hull refers to "General Denikin, K.C.B." If that is intended to be a sneer, I can only say it is a singularly ill-conditioned one.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the recent successes of this gallant General, is it intended to confer on him any higher military decorations?

Mr. MacVEAGH: Give him an O.B.E.

Viscount CURZON: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any reports have been received as to the state of affairs at Murmansk and Archangel; what amounts of stores were there; and if there is reason to think that they have all fallen into the hands of the Bolsheviks?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Various reports have been received as to the state of affairs at Murmansk and Archangel, most of which have appeared in the public Press. The anti-Bolshevik troops holding the Murmansk front were apparently on the 25th February still making a good resistance to the Bolsheviks, but at the town itself (300 to 400 miles north of the
fighting front), a revolution appears to have broken out on or about February 21st. At Archangel a revolution broke out on February 23rd, and the Bolsheviks are now in possession of the town and surrounding country.
A certain amount of stores were left behind when the British evacuated North Russia in 1919, and it appears probable that the unexpended portion of these has fallen into the hands of the Bolsheviks, but no information is at present available to show the quantity or nature of such stores remaining in Archangel and Murmansk on the 23rd and 21st February respectively.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman has received any expression of gratitude from the Bolshevik Government for the gift of these stores?

Mr. ALLEN PARKINSON: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has received from British military representatives with General Denikin's forces any reports as to the use made of the supplies of all kinds provided to General Denikin by the British Government at the expense of the British taxpayer; and, if no such reports have been received, whether he will call for full reports from responsible officers and will publish them when received?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Reports have been received from General Holman, Chief of the British Military Mission with General Denikin, giving an account of the work carried out by his Mission. This work includes the supervising of the distribution of stores supplied by His Majesty's Government to the Russian Forces, and giving instruction in the employment of these stores. It is considered that General Holman and his Mission can be relied on to ensure that the best possible, use is made of the stores, and that no useful object would be gained fey publishing these reports. It should be remembered that £11,000,000 of the £15,000,000 allotted as a final contribution to General Denikin consists of surplus and non-marketable stores which would otherwise have been scrapped or disposed of at a tenth of their value.

ROYAL MARINE BATTALION (IMPRISONMENT).

Mr. W. R. SMITH: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether 83 men belonging to B Company, 4th platoon, 6th Royal Marine battalion, are at present serving terms of imprisonment as a result of court martial when serving in Russia in September, 1919; whether he can state the nature of the offence with which they are charged; whether they had acted under instructions from their superior officers; and, having regard to the strong feeling that exists regarding this and similar cases, he will take the necessary steps to secure an amnesty for such prisoners?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I have been asked to answer this question. My hon. Friend will perhaps remember the full statement made by the First Lord on December 22nd. In any case I am sending him forthwith a copy of that reply. The First Lord dealt fully with these most regrettable occurrences, stated the sentences imposed in the first instance by the Field General Courts Martial and reviewed by the General Officer Commanding in the Field, and gave particulars of the remissions which, in the exercise of their proper duty of revision, the Board of Admiralty had approved.

Mr. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these men served on four different fronts in the War previous to going to Russia without any offence being recorded against them, and, having regard to the fact that there was no declaration of war against Russia, might this case be given further special consideration?

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend had better read the very full answers on the case given on December 22nd.

HUNGARY.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign affairs if he can state the approximate number of persons suspected of socialism and communism now interned or imprisoned in Hungary; whether any visits have been paid by Allied officials to the internment camps; and whether reports on the camp conditions have been received?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer to all parts of this question is in the negative.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether any steps are being taken by H.M. Government to mitigate the White Terror in Hungary, and whether the hon. Gentleman can find out whether there are not 40,000 people interned there?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member should put that question down.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is oh the Paper, Sir.

Mr. SPEAKER: Then the hon. and gallant Member has got an answer.

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a Memorandum sent by four leading Hungarian liberals to Sir George Clerk in which the responsibility for the terrorist régime of the present Hungarian Government is placed on the British representatives in Hungary; and whether any action is being taken to put a stop to the excesses of the present Hungarian Government and its supporters?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. It is not clear to what excesses the hon. Member is referring in the second part.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether steps will be taken by H.M. Government to inquire into these excesses in Hungary and to lay on the table of this House some sort of report as to what is going on in that country under our sanction and approval?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No excesses, in Hungary or anywhere else, are carried on with the approval of H.M. Government. In answer to the other part of the question, I am sorry I cannot add to what I have already stated.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not possible for H.M. Government to communicate with our representatives in Hungary asking them to make a report on these concentration camps, where these people are being slowly done to death by the new Hungarian Government?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: In answer to these supplementary questions, may I
point out that it is not clear to what excesses the hon. Member and hon. Members refer, and I must say, on behalf of the Foreign Office, that it does not help the Government to allege excesses against the Hungarian or any other Government.

CONSCRIPTION (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.)

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affiairs if he has any information as to what decision the Government of the United States has come to with regard to the question of compulsory military training for its army?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I understand that the proposal is still under consideration by the United States Congress.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that nothing definite has been settled in regard to this matter, and is not the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for War that America has retained conscription very premature, if not to say completely false?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Minister for War is on the front Bench, and that question should be addressed to him.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is it not the case that the Military Affairs Committee has rejected the proposal?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Might I address my question to the Minister for War?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should give notice of it.

WAR DECORATIONS.

Major HILLS: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will reconsider his decision not to allow service with the Territorial Force Reserve to count towards the Territorial Force decoration, for while the rule might properly apply to officers voluntarily placing themselves on the reserve for their own convenience it inflicts a great hardship on officers compulsorily placed on the reserve owing to wounds or illness contracted on service, and especially where
an officer on recovery applies to be restored to the establishment but is unable to find employment?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Regulations do not admit of time served on the Territorial Force Reserve counting towards the qualifying period of service for the Territorial decoration, unless the officer is actively employed. I regret that no exceptions can be made to this rule.

Major Earl WINTERTON: May I ask whether it is a fact that an officer who served in the Territorial Force before the War and went on the Reserve a few months before the War and afterwards rejoined the Territorial Force cannot count war service as double towards obtaining the Territorial decoration, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some hardship is caused by that ruling?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I was not aware that that was the case, but I will investigate the facts now I am informed of them by my Noble Friend.

Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I made an application on those lines? I served 13 years in the Territorials before the War, left it for the Reserve three months before the War broke out, and rejoined, and was not entitled to any decoration.

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not a moment for autobiography.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

MARRIED OFFICERS.

Mr. HOHLER: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state to what allowances married officers are entitled under Army Order No. 324, 1919, whilst on leave; and does the order, Table XIV., paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8, in terms entitle all officers fulfilling the conditions therein stated to furniture, lodging, and fuel and light allowances whether on leave or not?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir A. Williamson): Army Order No. 324, 1919, Table XIV. (Allowances) varies the rates of lodging, fuel and light allowances in favour of married officers, but not the conditions under which these allowances
are drawn. Paragraph 4 (General Conditions) attached to the Army Order states that allowances will be drawn by officers under the normal conditions. These conditions, under which lodging and fuel and light allowances either cease at once during leave, or are continued for limited periods, are not therefore at present affected by the Army Order. The conditions are, however, under consideration.

Mr. HOHLER: Will my right hon. Friend refer me to any paragraph in the Order that does deprive an officer of these allowances?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. HOHLER: But that is what I have asked in the question.

WIDOWS OF OFFICERS AND PRIVATE SOLDIERS.

Viscountess ASTOR: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the amount of pension due respectively to the widow of a lieutenant-general, of a major, and of a private soldier, who died before 1914; and whether, in view of the present cost of living, His Majesty's Government has any intention of raising the amounts?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: As all cases of pensions where the death was due to war are dealt with by the Ministry of Pensions, I conclude that the reference is to cases where the husband died from natural causes. In such cases a compassionate grant is made to the widows of officers, if their pecuniary circumstances justify an award. The rate is: for the widow of a lieutenant-general, £120; for the widow of a major, £70.

Captain LOSEBY: Could not facilities be given at an early date for a discussion of the whole of this problem of military emoluments, and as to the way they were assessed before 1914?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must give notice of that question.

IRREGULAR MARRIAGE UNIONS.

Mr. BRIANT: 44.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the total number of unmarried wives who have received separation allowances
during the War; and, if there is difficulty in giving these figures, can he give the numbers in each at any given date before 31st December, 1918?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: This information is not available as it has never been necessary, for statistical purposes, to distinguish between Class A and Class B dependants. Moreover, it cannot be obtained without an exhaustive review of over a million dead accounts, and even if this were practicable, the cost of the scrutiny would, I submit, be out of all proportion to the value of the information secured. The War Office have only been interested in details of these irregular unions from the point of view of assessment—such as whether the parties were free to marry, period of cohabitation, number of children being maintained, and whether any or all were result of union, &c., &c. Further, it would not be possible to strike an average on the figures of any one selected pay office as the proportion varies in areas and in periods.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY.

REGIMENTAL OFFICERS.

Lieut.-Colonel CAMPION: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the selection of regimental officers is in the hands of commanding officers of Territorial battalions subject to confirmation by the War Office; and whether those whose names now appear in the Army List on the strength of such battalions, and who are not selected, will automatically revert to the Territorial Army Reserve.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The selection of regimental officers rests primarily with the officer commanding the unit, who may ask the Territorial Force County Association for their co-operation if he so wishes. The list of selected officers will be sent through the usual military channels to the War Office for approval. Officers who are supernumerary will be transferred to a Reserve if they are willing.

COMMITTEES OF SELECTION.

Lieut.-Colonel CAMPION: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will direct that the Committees appointed
to select commanding officers of Territorial battalions shall include at least one member who served in the front line during the late War?

Mr. CHURCHILL: A member of the Travelling Board served in the front line during the late War and, further, the Divisional Commander concerned is always present to represent his views.

Mr. E. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Travelling Board will finish its labours, as until the commanding officers are announced we cannot get on with recruiting?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I went into this question yesterday, and I am assured that the greater part of the work is already done and that very large numbers of officers will be appointed in the course of the next few days.

RECRUITS.

Lieut.-Colonel CAMPION: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can see his way to issue an invitation to public bodies in this country to co-operate in securing recruits for the Territorial Army?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Territorial Force County Associations are responsible under present Regulations for recruiting for the Territorial Force, and they are no doubt alive to the advantage of securing the co-operation of public bodies as suggested. The Army Council have no desire to interfere with the County Associations in the performance of this duty, but are anxious to assist in every possible manner.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

UNCLAIMED CREDIT BALANCES.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the amount of the unclaimed credit balances awaiting distribution; and, with a view to assist in tracing the next-of-kin, can he see his way to have lists with all available particulars supplied to local pension committees, and displayed at all public libraries and similar places?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The amount of the unclaimed balances awaiting distribution cannot be given with any accuracy, as the amount is constantly changing as claims are disposed of. The average
amount handed over to the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation for the benefit of relatives of deceased soldiers, or invested by the Department preparatory to handing over, on account of the unclaimed balances during the past six years was £4,360. Of course, the claims of a deceased soldier's heirs hold good and are recognised by the War Office, even though the actual money due may have been invested or handed over, I will consider whether it is possible to extend the various means of publicity already used, which include publication of lists in the "London Gazette," the Army List, and the Press.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people who are likely to be beneficiaries do not see the "London Gazette," and can he take other means of bringing the facts to people of humble circumstances?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I have already stated that I will consider whether it is possible to extend the publication of the lists.

WAR DECORATIONS.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISOTN: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state if a special medal will be awarded to members of the Territorial Force who were mobilised in August, 1914, and volunteered for service overseas; and whether members of the Indian Volunteer Force, who were at home on leave and who Were mobilised at the same time as the Territorial Force, would be eligible for the medal in question?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; as I stated in reply to the hon. Member for East Cardiff on the 12th February, a special medal has been approved for members of the Territorial Force who undertook to serve overseas in the early part of the War, provided they fulfil certain conditions. As regards a medal for the Indian Volunteer Force, this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India, who, I understand, can add nothing at present to the answer which he gave the hon. Member on the 17th February.

Captain LOSEBY: Is this same medal going to be given to the Special Reserve?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; this medal at present applies to the Territorial Force.

Captain LOSEBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the Special Reserve is not in identically the same position?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think it is.

WOMEN'S ARMY ORGANISATIONS.

Viscount CURZON: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for War how long it is intended to continue the employment of women in the Women's Legion, Army Service Corps, Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps: and what are their present rates of pay and allowances and conditions of service?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps will cease to exist on the 30th April next, on which-date all contracts will expire. It is intended to dispense with the services of the Women's Legion Motor Drivers by the 31st May; all drivers at present serving have signed on to the 30th April, but they can be retained or discharged at a month's notice. I will arrange to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the rates of pay and allowances at present drawn by those now serving.

The rates of pap and allowance are as follow:

QUEEN MARY'S ARMY AUXILIARY CORPS.

Category A.
Rate of Pay.



Per week.


Superintending Forewoman Clerk.
48s.


Forewoman Clerk
40s. 6d. to 42s. 6d.


 Ordinary General Clerks
31s. 6d. to 37s. 6d.

Category B.




Per annum.


Hostel Forewoman
£48 18s.


Forewoman Cook
£48 18s.


Forewoman Waitress
£43 18s.


Assistant Forewoman Cook.
£33 18s. to £38 18s.


Assistant Forewoman Waitress.
£33 18s. to £38 18s.


Cook
£31 4s.


Waitress


Pantrymaid


Housemaid


General Domestic worker
£29 4s. to £30 4s.

Grade.
Rate of Pay.
Array of Occupation Bonus.



Per annum.
Per week.


Assistant Chief Controller
£350
12s.


Deputy Assistant Chief Controller (two)
£250
10s.


Senior Unit Administrator (two)
£175
6s. 3d.


Unit Administrator
£150
6s. 3d.


Deputy Administrator
£135
5s. 6d.


Assistant Administrator
£120
5s.


Quartermistress, Class I.
£150
6s. 3d.


Quartermistress, Class II
£120
5s.

WOMEN'S LEGION MOTOR DRIVERS.

Grade.
Inclusive rates of pay


Chief Commandant
Unpaid. Per annum.


Deputy Commandant
£276


Overseas Commandant
£276


1st Class Assistant Commandant
£218 4s.


2nd class Assistant Commandant
£189 19s.



Per week.


1st Class Superintendent
£3 5s.


2nd Class Superintendent
£2 17s.


Head Driver
£2 7s.


1st Class Driver
£2 3s.


2nd Class Driver
£2

Deductions are made from the above rates to cover cost of board and accommodation where such is provided by the public.

Domestics.—Where employed are at same rates as for Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps.

ORDNANCE MACHINERY INSPECTORS.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the consideration of the conditions of service of inspectors of ordnance machinery is yet completed; if so, what improvements are to take place to enable men to sit for examinations qualifying for promotion: what are to be the conditions of first appointment; and whether armament artificers of the, Royal Army Ordnance Corps, who are properly trained men, having served an indentured apprenticeship and holding two science certificates, are covered by any decisions arrived at?

Mr. CHURCHILL: This question is still under consideration.

RESERVE OF OFFICERS.

Major GLYN: 23
asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether any steps are being taken to make use of the war training and experience of the many young captains and subalterns who have relinquished their temporary commissions in the new armies created during the War, and to encourage them to join the Reserve of Officers by holding out some advantages that are compatible with their civil occupations; if this action has been taken, what is the nature of the inducements held out; (2) How many officers of the new armies, Special Reserve, and Territorial Army have been specially selected by the Commander-in-Chief in the field and recommended for appointment to permanent regular commissions; whether under present circumstances there is room for these officers in the Regular Army; if any steps are being taken to encourage these officers to join the Reserve of Officers; if so, what particular inducements are being offered; (3) Whether, in view of the fact that pages 2,333 to 2,373 of the January Army List contain the names of over 400 infantry captains and subalterns who have been given permission to resign their regular commissions on the condition that they join the Reserve of Officers, he will take steps to make public the future terms of service in the Reserve of Officers, since it is important to encourage officers to remain in that Reserve, from which they can under present Regulations resign on the very day on which they are gazetted unless there are certain definite advantages known to be obtainable by remaining in the Reserve of Officers?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The conditions of service in the Reserve of Officers are under consideration, and until a decision is reached it is not possible to make any announcement of the terms of service or the nature of the inducements which it may be possible to offer to encourage officers to join the Reserve.
As regards the first two parts of Question 25, the number of non-Regular officers who have been recommended for permanent Regular commissions is 3,741, and applications and recommendations are still being received.
In some of the technical arms of the service there is a deficit of Regular officers, and arrangements are being made
for permanent commissions in these arms to be given to a certain number of non-Regular officers who are qualified to perform the requisite duties. In the artillery and infantry there is a surplus of Regular officers over the probable requirements, and the question of how many permanent commissions can be given in these arms is now under consideration.

ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (MESOPOTAMIA).

Sir WATSON CHEYNE: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the grave discontent among the Special Reserve and Territorial Force officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps in Mesopotamia owing to the fact that they cannot get leave, some having spent two, or even three, hot seasons in Mesopotamia without leave; and, especially in view of the prospect of having to spend another hot season there, will he take steps to give relief to these men?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Many of these officers, in common with those of the Regular Royal Army Medical Corps and the Indian Medical Service, have leave due to them. This is a matter for the local military authorities, but I would remind my hon. and learned Friend that the granting of leave must necessarily interfere with the release of officers eligible for demobilisation. Regular officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps are being sent out as they become available to replace officers of the Special Reserve and Territorial Force whose demobilisation has been applied for.

Captain REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not also a fact that the Coalition is going through a hot season?

VICKERS AND LEWIS GUN EQUIPMENT.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for War if the new Army is to be equipped with a sufficiency of automatic rifles as well as machine guns?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is proposed to equip the whole Army, Regular and Territorial, with both Vickers and Lewis machine guns. We cannot face the expense of the introduction of an automatic rifle at the present time. Experiments will be continued, and better models will be available in a few years.

TRAINING CAVALRY.

Mr. BLAIR: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for War if the Netheravon School has been re-opened for the training of cavalry recruits; and, if so, could the Curragh, with its large area, cope with all the cavalry training?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Cavalry School at Netheravon was re-opened in May last. The object of the school is not to train Cavalry recruits but to train in equitation officers and non-commissioned officers-who have some years' service. It would not be convenient, nor economical, to have this school at the Curragh.

YEOMANEY REGIMENTS.

Sir FRANCIS BLAKE: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that some yeomanry regiments which have undertaken to become regiments of Special Reserve have only done so because they wish to preserve their cavalry traditions; and whether he can say that the possibility of the continuance of such regiments as Territorial yeomanry will not be prejudiced by the undertaking they have given?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The whole question of the future of the Yeomanry, including those regiments which have signified their acceptance of Special Reserve conditions, is at present receiving my personal consideration, and a decision covering all cases will be given very shortly.

ROYAL ENGINEERS (STAFF OFFICERS).

Major BARNES: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that under Army Order 324, of 1919, the pay of the regular officers of the staff for the Royal Engineers is relatively, to the pay of other officers, lower than before the issue of that Order; and will he take steps to improve their position by granting them conditions of rank, pay, and retirement equal to that given to veterinary officers?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The conditions of the staff for Royal Engineer services-were carefully considered before Army Order 324 was drawn up, and they have recently been again reviewed. It is not proposed to make any change in the basis, but the question of granting a further war bonus is under consideration.

MILITARY OFFENCES.

Major BARNES: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the total number of members of His Majesty's forces now imprisoned on account of disciplinary offences committed prior to the Armistice and subsequent to 4th August, 1914; and if there is any intention to remit the remainder of the sentences for these offences?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am having figures prepared to show the number of men now undergoing imprisonment or detention for military offences committed between the outbreak of war and the Armistice; also the number undergoing sentences of penal servitude for military offences committed during the same period. These will be published as soon as they are compiled. With regard to the last part of the question, I can only refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply on Thursday last to the hon. Member for Montrose.

WAR STORES IN FRANCE.

Sir RICHARD COOPER: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War if all war stores in France for which he has been responsible have been handed over to the Disposal Board; were they listed and checked before being handed over; and, if not, what is the approximate value of such stores now held in France by the War Office and the Royal Air Force?

Mr. CHURCHILL: All stores in France surplus to Army requirements and surplus to necessary requirements for local maintenance have been declared surplus to the Disposal Board. All such stores have been listed and checked, except about 2 per cent. which are now being dealt with. All Royal Air Force stores other than those retained for post-war stocks have been declared surplus to the Disposal Board, and it is anticipated that all such stores will have been handed over to the Board by the end of this month. All stores transferred have been either listed and checked or valued by the Board s valuers.

Sir R. COOPER: May I ask whether, if it can be shown that there really is unnecessary delay in disposing of War stores in France, it rests now with the Disposal Board and not with the War Office?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir, the War Office handed over the enormous bulk of the stores to the Disposal Board, and they are getting rid of it on the best terms possible in the shortest time.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that these tenders which are invited for these goods are open tenders and not sealed tenders; and, if not, why?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That question should be addressed to the representative of the Ministry of Munitions.

Mr. MacVEAGH: He says he has nothing to do with it.

MESOPOTAMIA (NATIVE LEVIES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any steps have been taken to raise and train native levies in Mesopotamia; and, if so, what progress has been made?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. There are 13 units of levies sanctioned, each under a British commandant. There are 6,228 non-commissioned officers and men, nearly half being mounted, and 67 officers. There are two more units under consideration.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that this excellent policy will lead to a very great reduction in the near future of our troops in Mesopotamia?

Mr. FISHER: I take it that is one of the objects.

Sir J. D. REES: Are these native levies local Arabs?

Mr. FISHER: They are Arabs and Kurds.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are Indians being used to officer the corps?

Mr. FISHER: Will the hon. and gallant Member give notice of that question?

Oral Answers to Questions — RESETTLEMENT GRANTS.

BUSINESS LOSS.

Mr. DOYLE: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he can give the number of men, prior to the passing of the Military Service Act, who disposed of their
businesses at a loss in order to serve the country; what was the average amount of the loss incurred; what steps, if any, have been taken to recoup such men as far as possible; if he will give the number of men who have been compensated, and the average amount given; and, in the event of no such compensation having been made, what allowance, over and above that granted to ex-service men generally, is being given to these ex-business men?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that I have no information as to the first and second parts of this question. The Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Committee was set up to give assistance in such cases, and as regards the remaining parts of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

CANADIAN SOLDIERS.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he an explain the conditions under which soldiers were recruited by the Canadian Government for service during the War, with special reference to the case of men who had left this country prior to the outbreak of war and were settled in Canada; whether he is aware that gratuities were promised by the Canadian Government, varying with the length of service; and, if so, will he state what action can be taken by the Home Government to provide that such gratuities as were due to soldiers who have either died or been killed on service will be paid to their parents or other relatives in this country?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I have not sufficient information on the subject to be able to make any statement, and I have no power whatever to intervene in a matter which is one entirely for the Canadian Government.

Mr. GRAHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman let us know what is the position?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I do not think this is a matter at all for the War Office. The hon. Member had better enquire through other channels.

Mr. GRAHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me through what channel I should make the enquiry?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I would suggest the High Commissioner for Canada might perhaps be a suitable source of information. The War Office has no power.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

DISTINGUISHED SERVICE.

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether officers seconded from the Army on whom higher substantive rank has been conferred by the King in recognition of distinguished service in the Royal Air Force have been deprived of their reward no reverting to their Army unit; and, if so, whether it is possible to arrange that such officers should be gazetted to the equivalent rank in the Army, by brevet or otherwise, and so retain an honour, the loss of which they feel very deeply?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given on the 23rd December last to the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot. It has been decided that Army officers who return to the Army from the Royal Air Force, in a lower relative rank than that held by them in the latter Service, may resume their Royal Air Force rank upon final retirement from the Army, if such rank is higher than that to which they are entitled under their Army Commissions.

WAR AIRCRAFT (CONVERSION).

Viscount CURZON: 63.
asked the Under-Secretary of. State to the Air Ministry if he will state how long is required to convert a bombing, observation, and scout machine, respectively, from war to peace purposes, and vice versâ?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Major Tryon): The time necessary for the conversion of a war machine to use for peace purposes depends entirely on the degree of comfort required by the pilot and passengers, as the removal of war fittings can be effected within a few hours. I regret that I am not able to furnish a detailed reply to the last part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question as the time would vary with each particular type and design of a peace machine.

An HON. MEMBER: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied that every
step is being taken by the Air Ministry to encourage civil aviation, and thus to provide an adequate reserve of machines for use in time of war?

Mr. SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of the question on the Paper.

STONEHENGE AERODBOME.

Mr. HUGH MORRISON: 64.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether he can hold out any hope that the aerodrome which spoils the beauty of Stonehenge will be pulled down?

Major TRYON: The retention of the aerodrome at Stonehenge has been the subject of very careful consideration, as the Air Council are in full sympathy with the desire that existing disfigurements in the neighbourhood of Stonehenge should be removed at the earliest moment possible. This station is, however, of great importance to the Royal Air Force owing to its proximity to Larkhill and other artillery camps, and until an alternative arrangement can be found the aerodrome will have to remain. Every endeavour will be made to provide suitable accommodation elsewhere, and when this has been done the buildings will be removed.

Mr. J. JONES: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman see his way to remove the disfigurement in the neighbourhood of Silvertown?

EX-SERVICE MEN (HOSPITAL TREATMENT).

Major COHEN: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction that is being felt throughout the country with regard to the treatment of ex-service men and soldiers detained in mental hospitals; whether he is aware of the serious allegations which are being made against the Lord Derby Hospital, at Winwick, in particular; and whether, in the interests of both hospitals and patients, he will arrange for an impartial inquiry to be held into the whole question?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave on the 18th February to the hon. and gallant Member for Ashford,
and to the statement made by my right hon. Friend (Sir A. Williamson) on the 23rd February during the Debate on the Army Vote on Account.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are no less than 3,700 of these men suffering from shell shock, and cannot something be done for them?

UNITED SERVICES FUND.

Mr. BRIANT: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for War if the United Services Fund no longer makes grants to ex-soldiers; and what is the amount remaining in the fund and how is it proposed it shall be distributed?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Grants to individual soldiers have ceased, but grants to institutions concerned with the welfare of ex-service men and their dependants are being continued. The total sum of money available for the Fund cannot be stated pending the realisation of the surplus assets of Army Canteens. I may add that information regarding the United Services Fund, which is an organisation independent of Public Departments, can be obtained on direct application to Lord Byng, at the offices of the Fund, 29, Cromwell Road, South Kensington, S.W.7.

Mr. BRIANT: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot say how much remains, can he say how much has been expended?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is not in the question, but if the hon. Gentleman will apply to the officers of the Fund they will give all the information possible; it is very important to keep this matter detached from the Government Departments.

Viscount CURZON: Should questions affecting this Fund be addressed to the War Office?

Mr. CHURCHILL: At present they should be addressed to the War Office; it is not yet finally settled whether or not some other Minister shall be responsible.

BLACK SEA ARMY.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the serious dissatisfaction
which exists among the soldiers in the concentration camp, Heidar Pacha, Constantinople, Army of the Black Sea; whether a large number of these men are in hospital suffering from frost bitten feet; whether some have committed suicide in consequence of the bad state of affairs in this camp; and, if not, will he cause inquiries to be made into the same?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No information of this nature has reached me, but I have cabled for a report, and will acquaint the hon. Member of the result.

CHINESE LABOUR CORPS, SHANGHAI.

Colonel BURN: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for War if 10 British officers are now at Shanghai in charge of repatriated coolies of the Chinese labour corps; when will these officers be able to return to this country; and what sum is fixed by the Government for their maintenance while at Shanghai?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Authority has been given for these officers to return to England either via Suez or via Canada, and it is not anticipated that any considerable delay will occur in their embarking as soon as their duties in China are completed. Arrangements have also been made for the Command Paymaster at Hong Kong to issue advances of pay and detention allowance to them while waiting at Shanghai.

Colonel BURN: What is the amount of the detention allowance allowed to these officers?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I have not got the amount with me, but I shall be very glad to communicate it to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

COMMITTEES OF INQUIRY (SELECTION).

Mr. REMER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister what policy the Government pursue in selecting Committees of Inquiry; and why, on the Standing Committee on Trusts, half the members are Socialists?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): I have been asked to reply. The
members of the various sub-committees appointed for the purpose of conducting investigations under the Profiteering Act are selected from the Central Committee and also from others possessing a technical knowledge of the trade to be investigated. I am not aware that half the members of the Committee on Trusts are Socialists.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

GERMANY.

Sir RICHARD COOPER: 46.
asked the Prime Minister what is the value of all foodstuffs which His Majesty's Government has already sent to Germany, and the value of foodstuffs which are still under contract for delivery?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The value of all foodstuffs, which are duly paid for, actually delivered to Germany on February 13th, 1920, was £15,149,667, while the value of the contracts still to be delivered on the same date was £655,473.

Sir R. COOPER: Do the figures for foodstuffs include linseed oil and all other fats?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I presume so; but I dc not know.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How is this £15,000,000 paid, and in what form is it received?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As the House knows, by the conditions of the Treaty, liberty was given to Germany to use a certain amount of assets to procure the necessary commodities, and this is paid for out of those assets.

GOVERNMENT STOCKS.

Colonel NEWMAN: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will take an early opportunity of informing the House as to the stocks of meat, sugar, and butter now held by the Government of this country or by the Governments of other countries on its behalf, and the reasons which pre vent these stocks being made immediately available for consumption?

Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The total recorded stock of butter in the United Kingdom on the 1st February was
12,000 tons. Of this, 10,900 tons was m the hands of the Ministry of Food, the balance consisting chiefly of butter In Ireland. The stock of imported meat on the same date was 142,000 tons, of which 115,000 tons were in the hands of the Ministry of Food or the Board of Trade. The stock of sugar in bond, as returned by His Majesty's Customs, was 286,000 tons, but the amount now held by the Sugar Commission is considerably under this figure. Stocks of meat awaiting shipment from the Colonies are large, and at the present moment supplies are ample. Butter, when obtained, is brought to this country as speedily as possible. Sugar supplies require to be carefully husbanded in view of the present high prices and the uncertain outlook.

Colonel NEWMAN: Would the hon. Member answer the last part of the question?

Mr. G. TERRELL: Answer.

Mr. PARKER: I cannot answer without notice.

Captain REDMOND: Is it not a fact that there are thousands of tons of frozen meat at present in ships lying in the ports of this country, that those ports are congested, and that there is a large available supply of frozen meat in the Colonies awaiting shipment; and why cannot this supply be released for home consumption?

Mr. PARKER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address that question to the representative of the Food Controller when he is able to be present.

Captain REDMOND: I will put a question to-morrow about it.

Mr. STEVENS: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the Prime Minister, to whom the question is addressed, and ask if he will endeavour to be in his place on Wednesday next week?

BUSINESS PROPERTY (SPECULATION).

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the present time there is active speculation in business property in all parts of the country: that shops and warehouses and
other properties are being sold at inflated prices without the knowledge of the tenants, who are being compelled to remove, often unnecessarily, at great expense, involving considerable dislocation in the business of many communities; and whether, having regard to the prejudicial effect of this speculation on the revival of trade and commerce, he is prepared to introduce legislation to deal with the question?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to what has already been said on the subject.

SMYRNA (GREEK LANDING).

Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if the Allied Governments will consent to the publication of the Report of the Commission on the events following the Greek landing in Smyrna; and, if not, will he state the reason?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is considered that the publication of the Report would increase the difficulties connected with the Smyrna situation.

Mr. HERBERT: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether this House is not deserving of being put into possession of that information, which every native in Smyrna has got?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware that the natives of Smyrna had that information. I do not believe the report which has been circulated.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: In view of the varying accounts of what took place, would it not be much better to say that we should have an authentic report of what actually took place?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer which I have given expresses the view of the Government. In the meantime, in view of the difficulties connected with a settlement of Smyrna, the publication of this Report is not advisable.

Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the decision come to by H.M. Government and the Allied Governments not to publish the Report an alleged account of the incident has been issued by Moslem propagandists and has been distributed throughout the Moslem world, and does that not affect the decision originally come to by the Allied Governments?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware of what my Noble Friend has said; but if it is the case that incorrect statements are being circulated to the Moslem world, it is only right that we should consider it.

Earl WINTERTON: I will send the right hon. Gentleman a copy.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of Members of this House have received an account, sent them from Moslem sources, regarding these atrocities, and we do not know whether they are true or false?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That may be so, but it does not affect the wisdom of the Government's decision. The settlement of Smyrna is one of the things that is being decided now by the Supreme Council, and in the view of the Allies the publication of that report would make the position of the Allies more difficult.

FOREIGN POWERS (LOANS).

Major BARNES: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what Foreign Powers loans have been made, and in respect of each loan the amount loaned, the rate of interest, the conditions of repayment, the amount repaid, and also, if any further loans are contemplated, the amount in each case?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): With regard to the earlier parts of this question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle North. No further loans are contemplated except in special cases for urgent relief, but some further sums may be required under existing commitments in respect of War purposes.

BRITISH CELLULOSE COMPANY.

Mr. CAUTLEY: 51
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) the reasons why he has approved of the Government taking 1,450,000 of the British Cellulose Company's preference shares rather than insist upon the company's property being sold and the Government's investment therein, made during the War, repaid; what justification the Government has for taking part in the industry of film producing; (2)
under what circumstances the Government became financially interested in the British Cellulose Company, Limited, and to what extent and upon what terms?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Under agreements made during the War with the British Cellulose Company for the production of acetate of cellulose the Ministry of Munitions contracted to advance to the company a proportion of its expenditure on plant and buildings for the purpose. Towards the end of 1918 arrangements were made to secure these advances, amounting to £1,250,000 in addition to a loan of £200,000, on the security of the company's power plant, by debentures on the understanding that the company would make an issue of preference shares in order to provide itself with the necessary working capital for the development of its peace business.
Experience has shown, however, that in these circumstances it would not be possible for the company to raise the necessary funds to continue its undertaking, and accordingly, after very careful consideration and as part of a scheme for the reconstruction of the company, I approved the proposal of the Minister of Munitions to take 1,450,0007½ per cent. accumulative participating preference shares in place of the existing mortgage and debentures. It is a condition of this arrangement that in case of war the Government shall have the right to take control of the management of the factory for the purpose of producing munitions, and that the company unreservedly abandons certain large claims put forward by them in connection with their transactions with the Government during the War. The alternative suggested by the hon. Member, namely, the liquidation of a new industry, which is essential in war and which under peace conditions may, I hope, prove to be of great benefit to this country, would not, in my opinion, have been in the best interests of the nation.

Mr. CAUTLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fact that two Government directors applied for 1,450,000 shares is being used by the company as a means of inducing other people to take shares?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We took the shares in view of our prior lien charge. We believe that will be in the interests of the country both as a creditor of the
Company and because it will facilitate the establishment of this industry here. We put two directors on the company to watch over the public money which has been invested.

Mr. G. LAMBERT: Has not this company made large profits during the War, and could the right hon. Gentleman not consider the possibility of the company paying off its liabilities to the Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We considered that, arid we found it was not possible for the Government to do it.

Major BARNES: Is there any precedent for the action which the right hon. Gentleman took?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, certainly. There are other cases during the War where similar action has been taken.

Mr. REMER: Is it not a fact that they are starting operations and manufacturing goods made by competing firms in this country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should be much obliged if the hon. Member would address a question of that kind to the Minister of Munitions, who is primarily responsible, although he could not act without the Treasury consent. I have acted on the advice of the Minister of Munitions, and I have satisfied myself that this advice was well founded.

Mr. FRANCE: What as to the profits of the company?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I inquired as to the profits of the company, and satisfied myself, in conversations I had with the Minister of Munitions and others, that it was not possible for the company to pay off our debentures or to raise capital with our debentures as a prior charge.

Mr. KILEY: How much cash did the vendors and promoters take out of the company, and if they could take cash out, why could they not pay the Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Obviously the hon. Member ought to give notice of that question.

Mr. KILEY: I did yesterday put it, and got no reply.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If it is put down to the Minister of Munitions, I see no reason why it should not be answered.

Mr. KILEY: I put it to him yesterday.

ENTERTAINMENT DUTY (FOOTBALL CLUBS).

Colonel Sir H. NORRIS: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the total sum received by the Government from the various football clubs in the United Kingdom by way of entertainment tax since the 1st day of September, 1919; whether such sum has been collected by the clubs from the public and paid over without any cost to the Government; whether he is aware that the collection and subsequent preparation of accounts entail considerable additional clerical labour on the clubs; and Whether, having regard to the circumstances and the large amount of revenue received, he will favourably consider whether some small percentage, say 2½ per cent., can be allowed to the clubs to cover the, additional expenses to which they are put in collecting and remitting the, tax and preparation of accounts?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that the figures requested in the first part of the Question are not available. I see no reason to depart from the invariable rule that no payments of commission should be made in connection with the collection of Excise revenue.

GOVERNMENT LOANS (SHRINKAGE OF CAPITAL).

Colonel NEWMAN: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the shrinkage of capital sustained by a large section of the population who obeyed the Government's appeals to transfer their investments from private and public companies to Government loans, and who have suffered loss as a reward for their patriotism; arid if he will say what action he proposes to take?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Government securities cannot be exempt from temporary fluctuations of market value, which also affect securities generally. It can hardly be regarded as surprising that during the early stages of reconstruction
the demands for money and the consequent high interest rates which borrowers are willing to pay should reflect themselves in a fall in the market quotations of stocks and bonds with a fixed yield.

Mr. HOUSTON: Will the Treasury or any other Government Department accept payment in these bonds at their face value?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We will accept payment in those loans of which that was a condition of the issue.

BUDGET STATEMENT.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 56 and 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if, in connection with the statement recently made by him to the effect that in the Budget to be shortly submitted, revenue and expenditure would balance, the proceeds of the sale of disused Government stores and materials were included as revenue; if so, what is the amount for which this item of receipts accounts; (2) if the Budget for the next financial year will be based on the assumption that during that period Germany will pay to Great Britain any part of the indemnity due to her under the Peace Treaty; and, if so, will he state what is the amount which it is expected will be paid.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the former question is in the affirmative. For the further information which he seeks, I must ask my hon. and gallant Friend to wait till the Budget statement.

Sir F. HALL: May I ask if the proceeds of sales by surplus stock can be construed by any business firm into revenue?

BRITISH CARRIAGE MANUFACTURERS (CUSTOMS DUES).

Mr. ALFRED SHORT: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that British carriage manufacturers are dissatisfied with the Customs arrangements whereby they have to pay import duty on chassis made at Continental motor factories for export out of Europe which are first sent to this country for the purpose of being fitted with British carriage bodies; that the British manufacturers have approached
the Customs without success, offering to give a bond for the requisite amount, so that large sums of their money might not be locked up in this manner; and whether, in view of the urgent need for greater production and export, he will arrange that in future a bond shall be accepted from British carriage manufacturers with respect to the import duty on such Continental chassis as are intended for exportation after being fitted with bodies in this country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware that there is any general dissatisfaction with the Customs arrangements referred to in the first part of the question. A firm has recently asked to be permitted to import chassis, without payment of duty, for subsequent export after being fitted with bodies in this country, and the Board of Customs and Excise are in communication with them on the subject. As soon as a decision has been reached, I will communicate it to the hon Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

FINANCING LOCAL SCHEMES.

Mr. CAIRNS: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the alarm caused by the statement that local authorities have to raise money for financing the housing scheme locally and not by the Government direct in the form of a national loan; and will he issue an official statement setting forth the intention of the Government, as local authorities find it very difficult to raise money locally for this object?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It has been made clear on many occasions and in particular in the circulars issued to local authorities as long ago as December, 1918, that (except in the case of authorities with a rateable value under £200,000) the capital sums required by local authorities for housing schemes must be raised by the local authorities themselves in the market. The Prime Minister received some little time ago representatives of the leading municipalities and other local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland, and together with myself explained the circumstances fully to them. The Prime Minister's statement and a summary of my own more lengthy observations appeared in the Press of Monday the 16th ultimo.

Mr. CAIRNS: And what are the prospects of success?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the meeting showed very good prospects. It is early to speak as the issue has not yet been made by the local authorities.

Mr. MYERS: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount received from local authorities during the current financial year in repayment of loans; and whether this amount could be made available for fresh loans for the purpose of housing?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member refers to repayments of principal to the Local Loans Fund, these amount during the current financial year to £2,524,895, and this sum will be available in the ordinary course for advances from the Local Loans Fund. There are other charges falling on the Local Loans Fund besides housing.

AGRICULTURAL ORGANISATION SOCIETY.

Mr. RAFFAN: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a loan has been made by the Government to the Agricultural Organisation Society in connection with the acquisition of new premises by the latter; what is the amount of such loan; whether this loan has been granted free of interest; and whether he will state the reasons for such exceptional treatment being accorded to that society?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): Yes, Sir. A loan of £15,000 has been granted by the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Development Commissioners, to the Society for the acquisition of premises, free of interest till the 31st March, 1922. Assistance towards the organisation of co-operation in agriculture is one of the statutory objects of the Development Fund, and it is part of the policy of the Government to promote this object."

Mr. RAFFAN: Is it not the case that this Association has a reputed trading turnover of 8 millions sterling a year, and under these circumstances is there any more justification for lending money to it free of interest than for advancing it free to other bodies?

Mr. BALDWIN: The Development Commissioners who investigated this case
satisfied themselves that the object of the Society is desirable in itself and worthy of advancement. The Treasury endorsed their view and in my opinion Very properly sanctioned the loan.

Mr. RAFFAN: But is it not true that this is a trading concern with a reputed turnover annual of over 8 million pounds. Was that fact taken into consideration?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Everything was taken into consideration.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the Treasury aware that the organisation got at least from £43,000 to £45,000 from the Government previously, and is not this a grant of an additional £15,000? Was that fact considered?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We considered all the relevant facts.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not a trading society at all, but a propagandist body, and that the figures quoted refer to other bodies founded on the principles which this propagandist body advocates?

INCOME TAX.

Colonel BURN: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place local authorities, on being assessed for Income Tax, in the same position as a private individual, so that, where the local authority owns two or more trading undertakings, they shall be entitled to set off against the profits of any one or more of those undertakings the losses which they may incur in any of their other undertakings, and be liable to Income Tax on the net result?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Consideration of this question must be deferred until the Report of the Royal Commission on the Income Tax has been presented.

Colonel BURN: When is the Report likely to be received?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I expect it almost any day.

COMMERCIAL AEROPLANES (MANUFACTURE).

Mr. RAPER: 66.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether it is a fact that all German manufacturers of commercial aeroplanes are
compelled to manufacture every type of aeroplane to a specification which will enable the machines to be both quickly and satisfactorily transformed into war machines; and why this most important regulation is not applied to the manufacture of all British commercial aeroplanes?

Major TRYON: I regret that I have no definite information on the point raised in the first part of my hon. Friend's question. In regard to the second part, I would point out that the majority of machines at present in use for civil aviation in this country are war types adapted, and that it is undesirable to restrict the freedom of designers in the development of civil type machines.

Sir R. COOPER: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the matter sufficiently serious to obtain accurate information as to what the Germans are doing?

Major TRYON: We have not the information asked for. I shall be happy to receive any information the hon. Gentleman has.

BICYCLES (REAR LIGHTS).

Mr. BRIANT: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now see his way to remove the Regulation compelling the use of rear lights for bicycles and tricycles?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough, on the 17th February.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: When will the new Regulations as to the lighting of motor vehicles come out in view of the fact that the authorities have had 14 mouths to consider the matter?

ALIENS RESTRICTION ACT.

Mr. R. GWYNNE: 68.
asked the Home Secretary how many cases have been brought before courts of summary jurisdiction where aliens have been charged with landing in the United Kingdom without licence or permit; what have been the Orders made; and whether they have in all, or in how many, cases resulted in the defendant's being deported?

Sir J. BUTCHER: 69
asked the Home Secretary whether he can state the number of aliens who have succeeded in landing in the United Kingdom, without any licence or permit from his Department, in contravention of the Aliens Restriction Act of last Session; whether he can state the circumstances under which this was possible; and what steps he has taken to ensure that the provisions of the Statute shall be observed?

Sir H. NIELD: 70
asked the Home Secretary (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the observations of Sir John Dickinson, in dealing with the case of an alien brought before him on 21st February last, charged with landing in the United Kingdom without the leave of the Immigration Officer, in which the learned Stipendiary commented on the case with which aliens were allowed, in breach of the recent Aliens Restriction Act, to land at Dover without any passport or permit; what steps he has taken or proposes to take to prevent the recurrence of such breaches of the law; (2) if he is aware that large numbers of aliens, including the subjects of States recently at war with this country, are seeking to enter this country; what special steps have been taken since the passing of the Aliens Act to keep Control of this immigration; whether the number of immigration officers has been increased; and by what number and at which ports, respectively; (3) whether his attention has been called to the observations of the learned Stipendiary Magistrates presiding at the Marylebone and Thames Police Courts, respectively, on the 13th February last, in dealing with the several aliens charged with landing in the United Kingdom with out the leave of the Immigration Officer; whether it appeared from the evidence that these and other aliens without permits were permitted to land at Dover without hindrance; and how, in view of the provisions of the Recent Aliens Act, does he account for this state of things?

Mr. SHORTT: The main substance of these questions is covered by the answers which I gave on Thursday last to the hon. Member for Mile End. As regards the points not so covered, I beg to say that my staff of immigration officers is at present in process of reorganisation with a view to placing it on a permanent basis, and neither its actual numbers nor the places and duties to which individual
officers will be assigned are yet settled. As I stated on Thursday, the number of officers dealing with passengers has been increased, and I estimate that there are now 20 more officers so engaged than there were at the end of last year. These officers are mainly engaged at the approved ports specified in the Second Schedule of the Aliens Order, but it is not possible to give exact figures for each port, because officers are assigned to passenger work from week to week or day to day as the volume of traffic requires, or-as any facts come to knowledge suggesting that special danger of evasion exists at any particular port or place. At ports other than the approved ports the provisions regulating the landing of aliens are enforced by Customs officers acting as immigration officers. As regards the numbers of aliens prosecuted for landing without leave, I am unable, as stated last Thursday, to give precise figures, but I find that 30 had been sentenced to imprisonment since that date. In 11 of these cases deportation orders have been made and the rest are noted for deportation as soon as opportunity occurs. With respect to those who have not been sentenced to imprisonment but nave been merely fined or bound over by the magistrates, I have still to consider what steps, if any, ought to be taken. Reports have been brought to my notice of remarks said to have been made by the chief magistrate and others in dealing with some of these cases, and before giving my answer last Thursday I had already drawn the attention of the chief magistrate and his colleagues to some of the considerations set out therein, and I will take the same course as regards the contents of my present answer.

Sir R. COOPER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that nothing short of a revision of Section 9 of the Aliens Restriction Act can possibly put this matter on a satisfactory basis?

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is there any hope that we shall ever get rid of war-time restrictions on freedom of travel?

LAW OF NATIONALITY AND NATURALISATION.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 73.
asked the Home Secretary whether the committee of ex-
Perts which was promised by the then Home Secretary, Sir George Cave, on 12th July, 1918, and which was appointed to consider alterations in the law of nationality and naturalisation, has yet concluded its labours; how many sittings they have had; whether such committee has yet reported or made recommendations as to legislation; and what steps have been taken to consult the governments of the Dominions and of India on this question?

Mr. SHORTT: The deliberations to which the hon. and learned Baronet refers are in the nature of consultations between the Home Country and the Governments of the Dominions and of India, and, so far as they cannot be completed by correspondence, must await opportunities for the meeting of representatives of those Governments or their expert advisers. They are not yet concluded, and there are no proposals at present ripe for legislation.

Sir J. BUTCHER: How often has this committee of experts met?

MOTOR CARS (HEAD-LIGHTS).

Colonel YATE: 74.
asked the Home Secretary whether, considering the danger of drivers of cars being temporarily blinded by dazzling headlights coming in the opposite direction and thus unable to avoid anyone crossing the road in front of them, he will have orders issued by the police forbidding the use of dazzling head-lights in the lighted streets of London?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. A. Neal): I have been asked to answer this question. I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member on February 17th.

Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable feeling about this question of head-lights in the London area, and that they are quite unnecessary for the purpose of driving into London?

Mr. NEAL: I am quite aware that there is considerable feeling about the matter, and I am asking the Committee to expedite its Report.

ATTACKS ON POLICE.

Mr. DOYLE: 75.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the many attacks on policemen and detectives during the last 12 months, where several officers have either been killed or wounded, he will consider the advisability of arming officers engaged on night duty with revolvers.

Mr. SHORTT: The Regulations of the Metropolitan Police provide for officers engaged on night duty being allowed to carry revolvers for purposes of self-defence, if they so desire and can be trusted in their use. Very few officers wish to carry revolvers, and it would not be safe to entrust them except to men thoroughly trained in handling and firing them.

"LONDON CATHOLIC HERALD"

Mr. R. YOUNG: 76.
asked the Home Secretary whether the offices of the New Catholic Press, Limited, were entered on 9th January by a detective-inspector without a warrant authorising his action; if so, by whose authority was this done; what was the reason for taking away all the copies of the "London Catholic Herald" of 10th January; why was the sale forbidden; and will he explain the nature of the contents of the issues of 27th December and 3rd January, of which the authorities apparently disapproved?

Mr. SHORTT: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Govan on Tuesday last.

DIVORCE LEGISLATION.

Mr. BRIANT: 77.
asked the Home Secretary if the Government will introduce legislation enabling a wife to obtain divorce on similar grounds to those which are sufficient for a husband?

Mr. SHORTT: The subject is an extremely controversial one, and I do not think it is possible, in view of the other demands on the time of the House, to attempt to deal with the matter this Session.

SEPARATION ORDERS.

Mr. RENDALL: 78.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can give the number of separation orders granted by magis-
Trates in England and Wales since 1914: and whether since demobilisation commenced there has been an increasing numbers of orders made.

Mr. SHORTT: I regret that the figures asked for are not available. Those for 1919 are being collected. As the Army was demobilised the number of separation orders must have increased, but there are no figures at present available on the subject.

Mr. RENDALL: Can the hon. Gentleman get the figures for the War years?

Mr. SHORTT: There will be great difficulty.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN'S PROCESSION.

CONFLICT WITH POLICE.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: (by Private Notice)
asked the Home Secretary whether he can make any statement concerning the conflict yesterday between the police and the deputation of ex-service men from Woolwich?

Mr. SHORTT: The procession was attended by a Superintendent of Police and a number of officers. The leaders of the procession were warned that they could not cross Westminster Bridge. They, however, attempted to rush the bridge. The police blocked the rush. At about 5.45 p.m. a deputation of the men came from Downing Street and informed the Chief Constable on duty that they had seen the Premier's Private Secretary, with satisfactory results. This was communicated to the men and the mounted police were sent into reserve. As it got dark there was some throwing of bottles and glasses from two public-houses, and several of the police were more or less serious injured. The "New Inn" was cleared by the police, and this led to the smashing of its windows. At about 6.30 p.m. the Chief Constable decided to withdraw the bulk of the police, as the crowd that was left were mostly waiting to see if anything further would happen, and by 7.45 p.m. all reserves were dismissed.

Mr. ADAMSGN: Would the right hon. Gentleman consent to a full inquiry being made into all the circumstances of this occurrence?

Brigadier-General CROFT: Should the inquiry be extended to the whole principle of the trade union movement?

Mr. SHORTT: I cannot see any ground for an inquiry.

Captain LOSEBY: Has any suggestion been made from any quarter that the police behaved improperly?

Mr. SHORTT: I have heard no such suggestion.

Mr. ADAMSON: In view of the unsatisfactory answer, I ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the action of the authorities in connection with a deputation and procession of ex-service men which resulted in disorder and many casualties."

Mr. SPEAKER: No suggestion is or has been made that the police acted in any way contrary to orders. As far as I can judge, they acted according to the Order passed by this House that processions of this character should not approach the precincts.

Mr. ADAMSON: When a serious matter of this kind which is under discussion—

Mr. SPEAKER: There is no Question before the House.

Mr. JOHN JONES: There is a Question before the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: There is no Motion before the House.

Mr. JONES: The Motion has been moved. There are men who have been disabled.

NOTICES OF MOTION.

TRADE DISPUTES ACT, 1906.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the working of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, and to move a Resolution.— [Major Newman.]

FOOD PRICES AND PROFITS.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to food prices and profits and to move a Resolution.—[Lieut.-Commander Williams.]

PENSIONS FOR WIDOWS AND CHILDREN.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the question of pensions for widows and children and to move a Resolution, —[Major Mackenzie Wood.]

SILVER COINAGE BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 34.]

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 34.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

BILL PRESENTED.

LICENSING BILL,

"to amend the Law relating to the sale and supply of excisable liquor, the regulation of clubs, the penalties for drunkenness, and for other purposes relating thereto," presented by Colonel GRETTON; supported by Sir James Agg-Gardner, Sir James Remnant, and Major Cour-thorpe; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 16th March, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Mr. John William Wilson reported from the Chairmen's Panel That they had appointed Mr. Turton to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Unemployment Insurance Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Unemployment Insurance Bill): Mr. Barrand, Sir Thomas Bramsdon, Mr.
Clynes, Viscount Duncannon, Major John Edwards, Mr. Austin Hopkinson, Sir Robert Home, Mr. Kidd, Mr. M'Guffin, Sir Philip Pilditch, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Solicitor-General, Mr. Walter Smith, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, and Sir Alfred Warren.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committe C: Major Courthope, Mr. Finney, Mr. Gilbert, and Sir Henry Norman; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. James Bell, Colonel Campion, Mr. Cowan, and Mr. John Murray.

STANDIXG COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B; Major Entwistle.

STANDING COMMITTEE.

D. Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee D: Sir Ryland Adkins, Major Blair, Sir Francis Blake, Mr. Bowerman, Captain Bowyer, Mr. Briant, Mr. Broad. Lieut.-Colonel Burgoyne, Mr. Casey, Mr. Evelyn Cecil, Lieut.-Colonel Spender Clay, Brigadier-General Cockerill, Brigadier-General Croft, Mr. Alfred T. Davies, Major David Davies, Sir William Howell Davies, Mr. Hugh Edwards, Major Farquharson, Mr. Foreman, Mr. Glanville, Major Lloyd-Greame, Mr. Thomas Griffiths, Captain Hacking, Mr. Haslam, Mr. Hayday, Mr. Irving, Mr. Jephcott, Mr. Jodrell, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Mr. Lindsay, Major M'Micking. Mr. Moles, Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon, Captain Moreing, Commander Sir Edward Nicholl, Mr. Albert Parkinson, Captain Rankin, Mr. Robert Richardson, Mr. Frederick Roberts, Mr. Royce, Sir William Seager, Mr. Thomas Shaw, Mr. Spoor, Mr. Sugden, Mr. Wason, Mr. Aneurin Williams, Lieut.-Colonel Willoughby, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert Wills, Earl Winterton, and Viscount Wolmer.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated Standing Committee D as the Committee on which Government Bills shall not have precedence.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL SERVICES AND EEVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1919–20.

[Sir EDWIN CORNWALL (Deputy-Chairman) in the Chair.]

ROYAL PALACES.

(Class 1.)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,350, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces, including a grant in aid.

Major HILLS: I wish to ask whether on this Vote I can raise a question which concerns one of the pictures in Hampton Court Palace? The last Item "G" refers to the purchase of tapestry for Hampton Court Palace. I desire to call attention to the treatment of one of the pictures at Hampton Court. In reply to a question on the subject, the First Commissioner of Works said he was not concerned with it, but I believe I am right in saying that he has charge of the pictures in the Royal Palaces, and is, therefore, responsible for the condition of the pictures. I am informed that this picture has been recently restored, and that its artistic value has been seriously damaged. The pictures at Hampton Court are amongst the most valued possessions of the nation, and the picture in question is one of a series of cartoons by Mantegna. The picture was given to a restorer for the purposes of restoration, and I am informed that; the restoration was very badly done, and the picture is very seriously damaged.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): On a point of Order. May I state that the pictures at Hampton Court Royal Palace are in no way in the custody of my Office? I have no charge of them whatsoever, and no control over them. They are part of the Royal Collection, and under the Lord Chamberlain's Department.

Major HILLS: Who pays for the upkeep of Hampton Court Palace? The nation pays, and surely the care of the pictures at Hampton Court Palace is part of that care for which the nation pays. I am not speaking about the ownership of the pictures. I believe that this picture comes under the department of the right hon. Gentleman and that he has failed in his charge.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member rose on a point of Order as to whether he could raise his question on this Vote. The First Commissioner of Works says that the picture referred to does not come within his Department. The Vote before the Committee refers to the first two items.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: Item "G" refers to the purchase of fifteenth century Arras tapestry. Why is the First Commissioner of Works not responsible for the pictures at Hampton Court if he is responsible for the fifteenth century Arras tapestry?

Sir A. MONO: Perhaps I can explain that the pictures and tapestry at present in Hampton Court are the property of His Majesty and not of the nation, and have nothing to do with the Office of Works. The Office of Works is not responsible for them. The hon. Member (Major Hills) made a Very unfair attack upon me when he said that I have been unfaithful to my trust. The restoration in question took place long before I assumed office and I had no control over it whatever. I am quite as much interested in pictures as the hon. Member. This is a piece of tapestry bought from public and private funds for Hampton Court, and it forms part of a set of tapestries placed in the palace at Hampton Court by His Majesty's express permission.

Major HILLS: If I have been unjust to the right hon. Gentleman I certainly regret it. I may have spoken warmly because I feel strongly on the subject. Can he tell me whether this picture has in fact suffered very serious damage?

Mr. HOGGE: There are two items in this Estimate to which the Committee is entitled to some explanation. The first is the provision of £100 for alterations at St. James's Palace. The total provisional Estimate was £1,250. I should like to know what new alterations have been necessary in order to necessitate this vote
over and above the provisional estimate of £1,250. With regard to the question of the tapestry we are beginning today the investigation of thirty, forty or fifty supplementary estimates covering an expenditure of between 30 and 50 million pounds. This expenditure on a piece of tapestry of £3,250 is equal to the salary of some of our Cabinet Ministers, and in some cases it is even more. The First Commissioner of Works said that this tapestry has been provided by public and private funds, and the Committee will notice that this £3,250 is the sum agreed to be borne by the Office of Works. Will he tell the Committee what this piece of tapestry is? Why is it so necessary at a time when the nation wants to save money that £3,250 should be asked in a supplementary estimate for the purchase of a piece of tapestry? Will he tell us the total cost of this piece of tapestry, how much is being borne by other departments, how much by the public and private bodies to which he has referred, and how it comes about that we are asked for this money to-day?

4.0 P.M.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I hope the Committee will not cavil at the item for this piece of tapestry. So far as I recollect this tapestry forms one single piece out of a set of seven very remarkable Flemish tapestries, six of which continuously remained in the possession of the English Crown. One portion became detached from the collection in the great revolution, and passed through various private hands until it was recently sold at public aution in London, when, owing largely to the personal munificence and patriotism of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Mond), this unique piece of tapesty, which completes the set which belong to His Majesty, was purchased for the nation. Now the nation is asked to bear some share along with the right hon. Gentleman out of his private munificence in restoring to Hampton Court this seventh piece of one of the most unique sets of tapestry that exists in the world. So far from censuring the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that the Committee will take this opportunity of recording its grateful thanks, not merely to him for the share which he personally has borne in this matter, but for the interest which he has taken in enabling the public once more
to see complete this unique and interesting tapestry.

Sir A. MOND: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I quite agree that perhaps some word of explanation is needed, and I am quite prepared to give it. This is one of seven pieces of tapestry which Cardinal Wolsey had made at the time that Hampton Court was built. There was every prospect of it going to America. I thought that it would be a great pity to let the tapestry leave this country, and I therefore endeavoured to get it housed in its traditional home. With that object, I approached the National Art Collection Fund which exists for the purpose of bringing important works of art to this country and maintaining them, and I also approached the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The arrangement that was made was that if half the money could be found by private subscription the Treasury would be willing to find the other half under the special circumstances. The vendor of the tapestry very generously let the State have it at a price below that at which he bought it some years ago, and a great deal below the price which I am certain that it would have realised had it gone to America. Although I quite sympathise with my hon. Friend regarding economy, I think the purchase of tapestry of this importance at such a modest cost to the Treasury—

Mr. HOGGE: What was the purchase price?

Sir A. MOND: £6,500, and the Treasury bore half of it. Under the circumstances, I think the Committee will agree that it would have been the greatest pity to have allowed one of the most unique specimens of tapestry to have left the country.

Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House which of the seven deadly sins is enshrined in this piece of tapestry?

Sir A. MOND: I am afraid that I cannot do that at the moment.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not quite understand who paid the other half. I understand that the Treasury paid half and that some unknown donor—I do not know whether it was the right hon. Gentleman—paid the balance. If so, it was very patriotic of him. I have always been a
very strong supporter of economy, and, though no doubt this is a very excellent work of art, works of art do not return any interest or bring in any revenue, while they require someone to look after them and to preserve them. I would therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to curb his artistic desire and not to buy any more works of art until our funds are in a rather better position. At the present time we cannot afford to buy works of art. I should like to know who found the other half of the purchase price, and I should also like to have some pledge from the right hon. Gentleman that, at any rate, for the next four or five years the Government will not buy any more works of art, but will exercise the strictest economy in this Department.

Sir A. MOND: I do not want to take any merit which does not properly belong to me. The fund was collected by the National Art Collection Fund, and, although I did contribute to that fund, I did not find the £3,250 required. Part of it was found by the National Art Collection Fund and part by other friends interested in the purchase. It does not often fall to my lot as a Minister to dabble in works of art, but I can assure the right hon. Baronet, however economical we ought to be, that it would have been the greatest mistake not to have closed with this bargain. With regard to the first question raised by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hogge), there has been a change of occupation in these residential apartments, and a number of small services have had to be put in for the benefit of the now tenant. That explains the small items for St. James's Palace. It is very difficult to make exact estimates, but the items represent small alterations, such as gas cooking stoves and things of that kind. It is almost impossible to estimate absolutely accurately, and that is why we ask for this small additional sum.

Mr. HOGGE: I do not want to begrudge any expenditure made in this way, but, if the House of Commons really want to economise, we ought not to allow Votes to pass in this way. What is to prevent any other artistic or scientific body in this country offering to purchase something if some Department of the State will find the other half? That is what is being done here. Somebody has been very keen to complete a certain number of pieces of tapestry which, probably,
not one in one hundred people in this country will ever see or read about. My right hon. Friend says that they ought, but he knows that the transport facilities are such that the bulk of the people will never see them. I would also suggest that a body like this very seldom lends these works of art to any of the local museums. It is very difficult to get them to Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, or Edinburgh. They are kept in certain buildings in London, and yet, because some body, called the National Art Collection Fund, has subscribed half, we are committed as a Committee to the payment of £3,250. I do not believe that is right. I do not believe that we are ever going to effect economy if we are going to pass sums like that simply because it is felt that it ought to be done. With regard to the other items, the answers which we have received from the right hon. Gentleman obviously are not complete. The provisional Estimate was £1,250, the revised Estimate was £2,400, and we are being asked to-day for an increase of £100. Before he can make good his reasons for getting this £100, my right hon. Friend has to explain the difference between the revised Estimate of £2,400 and the provisional Estimate of £1,250 for those apartments.

Sir A. MOND: The original Estimate was £2,300.

Mr. HOGGE: Yes, and the revised Estimate was £2,400 and the provisional Estimate £1,250, or half the revised Estimate. My right hon. Friend says that there has been a change in occupation and that some little services have had to be made, a dinner lift, a kitchen sink, or something of that sort. That is not the way to save money, and I make these remarks to warn the Committee before we enter into a specific examination of all these Estimates that it is going to commit the country to millions of pounds if it does not cheek the Estimates. I submit that my right hon. Friend has not given adequate reasons for the increase from £1,250, the provisional Estimate, to £2,400, the revised Estimate.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that while this country remains so poor he should get the Government to introduce and pass legislation similar to that passed in Italy, preventing works of art of great antiquity leaving the country. That at any
rate might save us being tempted to spend public money in order to prevent plutocrats of America getting hold of works of art which cannot be replaced.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Speaking for people with whom I am associated on these Benches, I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman opposite for having made this excellent speculation on behalf of the British Crown. When we do get a chance of getting a thing at half price, it is just as well to buy it whether it is a work of art or not. In this case we have not only got this additional work of art, but by buying it we have added enormously to the value of the other six pieces of tapestry by completing the series. Those of us who believe that the State ought to enter more largely into human relationships than it does at the present time are particularly glad to see an addition to the National treasures, whether they be artistic or purely utilitarian.

Question put, and agreed to.

OSBOKNE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for expenditure in respect of Osborne,

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I rise to see if I can extract some information with regard to this matter of Osborne Palace. As my right hon. Friend will remember, Osborne Palace was made over by King Edward for the training of naval cadets.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The only Question before the Committee is this supplementary sum of £500—£250 additional war bonus and £250 increased cost of labour and materials. Those are the only matters that can be discussed on this Vote.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am very much obliged to you, and I will very carefully observe your ruling. I wish to inquire why this money is needed seeing that Osborne now is not being used for naval cadets. May we have some short and brief explanation why this sum is required and also whether additional sums will be needed next year?

Sir A. MOND: Osborne Palace has nothing at all to do with the Navy. Osborne Palace, since King Edward gave it over, has been used as a hospital for naval officers, and this money is for additional war bonus for the staff and to cover the increased cost of labour and material required for the upkeep of the hospital.

Mr. HOGGE: Will my right hon. Friend tell us when this war bonus was given and to whom? The revised estimate is £6,285 and £250 is wanted for war bonus. That is a payment for salaries, wages and allowances, and the additional sum required is very small compared with the total amount.

Sir A. MOND: I am very sorry that I cannot give the explanation that is asked. There used to be a very good practice in this House that hon. Members who wanted to raise questions on estimates generally gave notice of some of the points which they wanted to raise. Here is an amount of £250 war bonds paid to nurses, gardeners and other people at Osborne. I have not got the list in the House. How can my hon. Friend ask me without notice-to give such detailed information? I would be very glad to give the hon. Member any information he desires when, it is obtained.

Mr. HOGGE: It is simply because Ministers who are in charge of estimates in this House do not know the estimates; that these questions are asked. My right hon. Friend is President of the Board of Works and responsible for this expenditure, and he ought to know. He hag also-at his left hand a bevy of officials who can get the information at any moment. It is a pure farce for a Minister to say that he ought not to be expected to know that which he is paid for knowing.

Mr. E. WOOD: I agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge). The right hon. Gentleman has referred to what he said was the ancient custom of Ministers receiving notice of matters that were going to be raised. But another ancient custom was that Ministers knew the estimates and those responsible for the estimates were themselves here. If these items are really connected with the Admiralty a representative of the Admiralty ought to be here. I would suggest that it would go a long way to meet the feeling which exists in all quarters of the House
with regard to the care given to estimates if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to withdraw this estimate from consideration now in order that on some subsequent occasion he may be able to give the House the information which it wants.

Sir A. MOND: This is a most unreasonable request. I am dealing with millions of pounds of estimates, and I take more trouble about them than some people, and because I cannot say at a moment's notice how a war bonus of £250 is spread among a staff of 90 or 100, this estimate is to be postponed. A more absurd charge was never made against a Minister. The hon. Member says that a representative of the Admiralty, who have nothing to do with this question, ought to be here.

Mr. WOOD: Who has?

Sir A. MOND: I have. I have not got the particulars at this moment. The pay sheets are at Osborne with the allocation of the war bonus. If hon. Members are going to ask for this kind of information it is only reasonable to ask for notice. To ask a Minister, employing thousands of people, at a moment's notice to say what is the allocation of the war bonus of every individual person is a farce. The hon. Member knows that a question of this character is a very small matter of detail, and that this is an automatic charge over which the Minister has no control. It is perfectly unjust to make the charge that I do not give any regard to the expenditure of public funds. I shall be very glad to supply my hon. Friend with all particulars.

Mr. HOGGE: Nobody accuses my right hon. Friend of not acquainting himself as far as possible with all the facts of an estimate, but I cannot accept his explanation. It means that any Minister who is in charge of an estimate can say, "I am very sorry I have not got these details, but we want our estimate and we appeal to the Committee" [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"], and the Committee say "Hear, hear!" and the estimate goes through, and we lose control of the money. One of the criticisms urged against us at this moment is that we do not pay attention to details. It is said that this is only £250. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman thinks, but I should be very glad to have £250 given to me any day of the week in these
hard times. Two hundred and fifty pounds spread over the estimates here means a lot of money. I would like my right hon. Friend and Ministers to understand that some of us are not going to allow these estimates to go through without explanation. We want to know exactly what we are doing, and where we can save money. We are going to save money, and we are going to assume that a Minister in charge of the Department ought to know.

Sir A. MOND: Docs the hon. Member wish the war bonus not to be paid to the staff?

Mr. HOGGE: I did not go into the question whether the war bonus should or should not be paid. I asked simply the question what war bonus this was, and to whom it was paid. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is automatic. That is obviously absurd.

Captain STANLEY WILSON: The right hon. Gentleman has probably made one of the most unreasonable requests that have ever been made in this House. He asked that Members should give notice of any question which they are going to raise in this House. Such a request has never been made before and it is most unreasonable to make it at this time. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not press that the Vote should be withdrawn, but I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that he is not now discussing Estimates in the same way as that in which we discussed them last Session upstairs in Committee, where he was able to shove through his Estimates, just as he liked. We are here now as Members of the House of Commons to ask for every detail that we like to ask for. He is there and ought to be prepared to answer. I hope that he will not again make any suggestion that he should receive notice of any question that is going to be raised.

Sir A. MOND: I did not make a suggestion. I referred to what was the invariable practice in this House in the old days. This war bonus was given under the award of November. When I said it was automatic I meant that we had to pay the war bonus when these awards were made. Therefore it was not in my power to refuse it, and I could not alter the amount or save money in that way.
I quite agree as to the importance of the examination of Estimates, but I have been through all my Estimates very carefully more than once to find out all the information which hon. Members would require. The matter which the hon. Member has raised is a very small matter, and I had no opportunity of inquiring into it. It would facilitate me, particularly on small questions of this kind, to get notice. On big questions the information would be more readily available, but it would save the time of the Committee and the Minister to give the Minister intimation when questions of this kind are going to be raised.

Colonel ASHLEY: I think that my hon. Friends are hard on the Minister of Works. It is quite reasonable that a Minister who has one Department should know all about that Department, but the First Commissioner of Works has a great number of buildings to look after. He cannot possibly carry in his head all the details of these various Government buildings, of which he is the custodian. Having said that as regards this particular case, I would enter a protest against the form in which these Estimates are presented to the House of Commons.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The only question before us is whether these war bonuses should be paid. The discussion has been rather fully developed, and the hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the question of the payment of this £250.

Colonel ASHLEY: Then I will confine myself to that. The information given here is not sufficient to enable the House of Commons to discuss the question adequately, and we ought to have particulars set out so that everybody can study them before the Estimates come on, and know exactly what they are asked to spend, and not have to get out of the Minister in charge by a too drawn process exactly what this means. Therefore, if my hon. Friends go to a Division, I shall vote with them, not because I am dissatisfied with the explanation of the First Commissioner, but because I am dissatisfied with the form in which the Estimates are presented.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: The right hon. Gentleman said that he had gone carefully through the Estimates in order to cover all the points raised in Debate.
That means that he expected points to be raised in this Debate other than those of which he had been given notice. How, therefore, can he say that it is not the practice of this House for Members to come down and raise points in discussion of which they have not given notice? All of us who have been in this House some time know perfectly well that it is the practice for Members in these discussions to go through the Estimates, and if there is any point which they wish to raise in the discussion to ask the Minister in chaise to answer any questions which are put.

Question put, and agreed to.

ROVAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GARDENS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £33,800, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for expenditure in respect' of the Royal parks and pleasure gardens.

Sir J. D. REES: I rise not merely for the purpose of criticism or to impugn the diligence of the right hon. Gentleman. I object to the policy of the First Commissioner of Works in respect to these park keepers. We have here a sum of £33,800, in addition to £182,000, which has been already granted. These are very large figures, and I want to know if these policemen and park keepers who get this large sum of £12,000 in wages and £18 000 in bonus are not to be employed to keep St. James's Park open after seven o'clock at night? Some members may laugh, but it is quite a serious matter. Hon. Members spend a good deal of their time here and often dine here—perhaps it is due to the excellence of the cuisine and of the company—but they do occasionally go home in the evening to see their families, and I want to know why, if a Member of this House wants to walk home from this place in the evening he should not be allowed to go across St. James's Park after seven o'clock. Why should these places not be kept open for them as well as for other members of the public, if we are spending these large sums to keep up a staff and to manage these parks? We are working men here, like everyone else, and we should be enabled to take advantage of these parks, and we should be able to go home through them instead of having to walk over the hard
roads and facing the risk of being run over by ears with dazzling lights. I bring this matter forward because it is not only a question of St. James's Park, but of the other parks, and I want to know why St. James's Park and the Green Park are to continue to be kept from the use of the public in the evening?

The CHAIRMAN: The general policy of the Government with respect to the parks is not a matter that is open to discussion on this Vote.

Sir J. D. REES: May I respectfully submit that the question of policy and the amounts to be paid to the staffs of the parks are inextricably connected if we are to have these large staffs, I submit that we ought to have the parks open later in the evening. That is not a large question of policy; it is a simple deduction from the fact that these staffs are employed. I think I am entitled to urge the First Commissioner of Works to tell us what return we are going to have for this money.

The CHAIRMAN: It would not be in Order on this Vote to discuss the time of the closing of the parks. The point is the question of additional wages and bonus to the park-keepers.

Sir F. BANBURY: I wish to ask a question regarding the staffs at Kew. We are being asked for an additional sum of £3,800 for a hostel for them. The original estimate was £7,000. What is the reason for this increase? Mention is made of a hostel. Has that hostel to be enlarged? Has there been any special reason for requiring this additional sum of £3,800? If there is any reason, how-is it that, while we are giving this very large sum in war bonuses to the park-keepers and others—I presume they are part of the gardening staff—we should also provide this hostel for them? Surely if they have got increased wages they will not need this hostel. What is a hostel? Will anyone explain that? I hear an hon. Member remark that it is a form of hotel. If that is so, I am not sure why we should be asked to give this kind of hotel to the gardeners. In these days economy might be exercised, and we should not give this "hotel" for the park-keepers in addition to the increase of wages. I should think they live in houses, and that there is no need to provide a hotel for them.

Mr. HOGGE: I have a question to ask upon the same subject. The original estimate was £14,440. How much of that was put down in respect to this hostel? I see a sum of £8,240, and this £3,800 is also proposed now. One does not know what is in the real total. Obviously, a smaller sum of £7,100 is included in the sum of £14,440. What else is there in that sum? I should like to know whether or not this hostel has been acquired? If it has been, who acquired it? On whose authority was it acquired; Who gave the First Commissioner of Works authority to acquire any hostel and adapt it for any such purpose? There is far too much of this "white elephant" business going on, and we ought to put a stop to it. If we do not put a stop to it, the public are going to put a stop to us. Though some hon. Members may laugh at the suggestion, it is quite true. This country cannot go on as it is going. I want to warn the Government that we are out to economise, and to do that we must examine these Estimates line by line, and make sure that there is no sum of money which has been improperly put down. How many of us will ever see this hostel or these gardens of the Royal Botanical Society? I think the nation could do very well without the Royal Botanical Gardens. What is the use of talking nonsense about these institutions? How many people in Scotland, Wales, Ireland or Yorkshire will ever see the Royal Botanical Gardens?

The CHAIRMAN: We cannot on this Vote discuss the policy to be adopted with regard to these Royal parks and gardens. We can only discuss the matter described in the supplementary Estimate, which is an additional sum in respect of the Royal Parks and Pleasure Grounds. We cannot discuss the whole Vote of the Department.

Mr. HOGGE: I think that the Vote includes the £7,100 in respect to these gardens, and I think it will be cheaper in the long run not to spend that money. It is not a question of policy, it is a question of voting this sum of money. What right has the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works to spend this money before he has got permission from this Committee? We want to stop that practice. Before these sums of money are spent the Department ought to have the approval of this Committee,
and we must watch that they do not spend money that they have no right to spend.

Lieut. - Colonel MURRAY: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. There was a time when Ministers could run these Estimates through without criticism. But it is now time that due consideration should be given to all these Estimates. There is no other subject that comes before this House which ought to receive closer consideration. I also should like to ask a question with respect to these new premises and alterations, for which the additional sum of £3,800 is asked. Is any of this asked for with respect to any of the temporary buildings in St. James's Park or the other parks? If so, how has it been expended? Has it been spent in making alterations in these buildings or adding to them, or in taking some of them away? Will the First Commissioner of Works tell us what is the intention of the Government with regard to these temporary buildings? The House of Commons ought to exercise the strictest supervision over all buildings that are erected in the public parks; and that used to be the case. The sooner these temporary buildings are removed the better. It should be done at the earliest possible moment.

Colonel ASHLEY: When the First Commissioner of Works replies, will he explain Item F, which is for additional war pensions to workmen employed in the Royal parks? Why should he not do away with these war "boni" and get a standard rate of wages, so that we should all know exactly what we were voting in the first place? It is time there was a consolidated standard rate of pay instead of these war bonuses. Is it the intention of the Office of Works to effect that? I think we ought to know quite clearly what they intend to do. In this sum for new works, alterations and additions the original Estimate was £14,440, and the revised Estimate is £18,240. Then there is this hostel to which the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has referred. This, it appears, is going to cost not only the original sum of £7,100, but also this addition of £3,800, a total of £10,900. For what purpose was it necessary to spend this sum of over £10,000?

Sir A. MOND: In reply to what has been said about the wages paid, that is a matter for the Treasury and not for my Department. The war bonuses have been given under the Civil Service arbitration awards of the 31st March, 1919, and a later date. The wages were raised from 30s. to 33s. a week. With regard to the other questions raised on this supplementary Estimate, I am asking now for an additional sum of £3,800 in respect to the acquisition of a hostel at the Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew That is not the total Vote. It is a Vote on Account. I am asked, who gave authority for it? My answer is that I am now asking for authority. No money has been spent. I am now asking for the money. That is the object of introducing such a Supplementary Estimate This is not a scheme for building a "hotel for gardeners." The scheme has been approved by the Minister of Agriculture in order to find accommodation for students who are studying at the Royal Botanic Gardens. Whatever hon. Members may say, the Royal Botanic Gardens form one of the most important educational establishments of this country. They might as well talk about the London University or the Imperial Institute or the Royal Botanic Gardens at Edinburgh. Sixty students will use the hostel. They will have a lecture room and a laboratory. The students receive a subsistence allowance, and in that matter there will be an income to balance expenditure, which will really make it a self-supporting institution. In this district, as everywhere else at the present time, accommodation cannot be found for the students. Therefore, the scheme was proposed, and is sanctioned by the Treasury. Premises are under consideration and will shortly be acquired when the Estimate is passed. As far as I have been able to judge, the scheme on the whole ought to be a very useful one, and ought to entail no charge on public funds.

Colonel NEWMAN: Will it be a mixed hostel for men and women, or only for men?

Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, that Item E. [New Works, Alterations and Additions] be omitted from the proposed Vote.
If we are told that my right hon. Friend is seeking permission to spend £7,100, we know where we are. By granting this
vote of £3,800 we are committing ourselves to the expenditure of £7,100. We are being asked to spend that money on a hostel for students at the Botanic Gardens, There can be no reason why that should not be done far more economically in existing buildings. Lectures in botany can be given at the London University. They are given at Edinburgh University, in spite of the fact that you have Royal Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh and that the students go to the Gardens in order to do their practical work. If the Committee are intent on spending money uselessly they can spend it and vote against the induction. There are professors of botany at the London University, and there should be no difficulty in arranging Saturday excursions to the Gardens for dealing with this matter. That is a temporary arrangement which surely can be made. I suggest that if we want to save money we can save this £7,100. It would be a warning to Ministers in charge of departments not to strike out in now directions while the finances of the State are so restricted.

Sir F. BANBURY: The First Commissioner of Works did not answer one question—why it was necessary to have this additional sum of £3,800? The right hon. Baronet has told us that this is a hostel for students. Will he look at the vote? At the bottom of page 7 there is this note:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Acquisition and adaptation of premises for a hostel for gardening stuff.
Which is correct? The First Commissioner of Works has said that, of course, he does not know all the different points and that it is not quite right to ask him. He thought the hostel was for students, whereas it appears to be for the staff. I shall presume that the estimates are wrong and that the right hon. Baronet is right. Why should we want a hostel for students? Is it the first time there has been a hostel for students at Kew? if not, why cannot they go on as in the past? It seems to me, again, that the least we can do is to continue, at any rate for the present, the practice of the past. If in the past it was good enough for students to accommodate themselves at their own expense, for heaven's sake let them go on in that way, until we are in a position to see that we can reduce taxation a little. I have no objection to students learning about the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, learning botany and that sort of thing.
I do not Know whether it is a very useful thing at the present moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I do not want to question that, but I do say it is only right that these students should do what has been done in the past and that they should not have any fresh luxuries thrust upon them by the keenness of the right hon. Gentleman. I will ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to see that the right hon. Gentleman answers my question as to whether this was part of an original estimate or whether it is a new estimate caused by alterations and additions to the original estimate.

Sir W. BULL: Cannot some use be made of the Royal Palace at Kew? It is in the Gardens and is not in use at the present time.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I find myself in the very happy but unusual position of being in complete agreement with the hon. Gentleman who moved the reduction of the Vote. I hope he will press this matter to a Division. The time has gone by when we can allow the Supplementary Estimates to slip through in any form in which Minister may choose to present them. I have been very much mystified in listening to the speech of the. First Commissioner of Works. Like another speaker, I am very anxious to know whether this is an education vote or whether it is a vote for the housing of the gardening staff in Kew Gardens. I have no sort of answer to that, and until we get an answer I hope the Government will not get their money. If it is an educational vote I should have very great sympathy with it; but I shall still want to know why these recipients of botanical education could not be housed in the ordinary way and why it was necessary to make this provision for them in a hostel in Kew Gardens. The very valuable suggestion has just been made that of it is really necessary to house these gardeners or students they could be housed in one of the Royal Palaces. At any rate, this Committee, in all seriousness, is entitled to very precise information from the Government when a Supplementary Estimate of this kind is asked for, I trust that the Estimates will be scrutinised item by item and line by line.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: So far as I have heard the Debate, it has prompted me to support the Amendment. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should
not make this a personal matter at all. We have no desire to oust him from his office. He does his duty very well according to his lights. Let the House decide this question.

Sir A. MOND: Perhaps the Committee will let me explain what this scheme is? There is no additional money asked for at all. The Supplementary Estimate is £7,100. I am asking for £3,800 on account, not the £7,100.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Why is it put down as an additional sum?

Sir F. BANBURY: How can there be a vote on account on a Supplementary Estimate? This is an Estimate supplementary to the Estimates already passed.

5.0 P.M.

Sir A. MOND: This estimate of £7,100 never has been passed. We are asking for £3,800 now on account of that £7,100. Accommodation is required for student-gardeners, that is to say for students at the Royal Botanic Gardens, who at the same time are working practically in the gardens. They have to be there at six o'clock in the morning. The reason why accommodation is required is not that there is any desire to build hostels, but because there is now everywhere such a lack of accommodation that many of these students are residing from 15 to 20 miles away, and they have to travel that distance before starting their work at six o'clock in the morning. The result is that the work is being seriously affected. What we want is that the Committee should make up its mind whether this work is of value. I think it is of very great value. I am astonished at what was said by the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) about the Royal Botanic Gardens at Edinburgh. Surely he is entirely wrong? The students have a laboratory and a lecture-room in the Botanic Gardens at Edinburgh. Everybody knows that the people working in the gardens study horticulture, forestry, tropical plants and other matters of that kind. They require work on the spot. The students have to pay a lodging allowance. This will be of great advantage to the students who work together and who will live in close proximity to their work. The amount of money involved is comparatively small, and I do hope the Committee will not put a stop to the attempt that is being made to im-
Prove the sadly neglected studies of horticulture, forestry, plant culture and kindred matters in this country. There is no real economy in doing that, and there is no use half starving the provision and making the students work in a way in which they cannot render efficient service.

Mr. CAUTLEY: The right hon. Gentleman has not told us the number of students for whom he is making this provision.

Sir A. MOND: The number is 60.

Mr. CAUTLEY: They have been going there for years, and just when everything is dearest we are asked to provide a hostel which was not done during or before the War. Why can they not get their accommodation now as they have done in the past. The right hon. Gentleman has not given us any explanation of that so far, and I shall support the mover of the reduction.

Mr. AC LAND: From the knowledge which I have of this subject I feel bound to support the right hon. Gentleman on one point. These students are young men of considerable technical educational attainments, and they go to Kew to study the higher branches of gardening. In view of the instruction they are willing to work in the gardens at a very much less rate of pay than if they were taken on as gardeners. They are allowed to stay for a certain number of months, and there are always people anxious to take then places when they go. I think the value they give in work is more than what is paid to them by the State for the work they do. There is the point as to finance. The right hon. Gentleman wants to begin this work, which he says is long overdue, and as it is extremely difficult to get accommodation for these men in the neighbourhood, and he wants to begin this financial year, and between this and the end of this month to spend £3,800 of the total Estimate of £7,000. That, I think, needs some explanation. I am sure he is being pressed by the Board of Agriculture. It seems to me to be impossible almost to spend the money in the time unless it is meant for the hire of huts. It would be better, I think, to let the matter come forward in the ordinary way and include the whole sum in the ordinary Estimates for next year and not ask for this supplementary Estimate.

Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: I am very glad that the First Commissioner has told us the terms under which these students are at Kew Gardens, and with that explanation I hope the House will support the item. In Estimates amounting to over thirty millions this one small item is picked out for attack. The science of botany is too much neglected in this country. I have had some experience of the science in my early days. I know the importance of it to agriculture and to forestry, two things which are rather backward in this country. The provision of accommodation at Kew Gardens is calculated to be of the greatest possible assistance because in the past the study of botany has suffered from the absence of such facilities for acquaintance with the actual plants, and also of scientific laboratories. Incidentally, this will help to solve to some extent the housing question. You take away 60 men from various districts and there are 60 more places for the British public, while the cost, so far as I can make out from the figures, is very far below the average cost of the houses which are being built by the local authorities. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Acland) has asked why the right hon. Baronet wants £3,800 to be spent during the month of March. I do not know, but it is very easy to imagine that the plans are ready and estimates have been given and the necessary labour arranged for. This is the time for building, and if you let it go by these buildings may not be completed this year and another whole year will be lost to the study of this science. To ask for the Vote next financial year would be a risk and would lead to very considerable postponement, and perhaps abandonment of the plan altogether. I do, in the interests of agriculture and forestry, appeal to the House to pass this Vote in order to encourage the study of the science of botany. I am rather astonished that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City does not appreciate its importance. This is one of the smallest and most useful items in these Estimates of thirty millions, and I trust the House will pass it.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I desire to support the First Commissioner of Works. We spend millions of pounds on the Army, Navy and Air Force, and from what I can gather this is a proposal to establish a hostel for students who have to be at the
gardens by 6 o'clock in the morning. It struck me that it would not be the children of the well to do who would be there at 6 o'clock, but the children of the working classes. An hon. Member says: "Nonsense," but what I say is quite true. We know the difficulty in agricultural areas where children who attend secondary schools get up at 7 o'clock, reach school at 9, finish at 4, and have two or three hours to wait for a train to take them back home. By the time they arrive there they are exhausted and you cannot get the best educational efficiency out of those children. It would be very expensive for these students in these gardens to live in London. They would have to be up between four and five in the morning and travel 15 or 20 miles. I, on behalf of the Labour party, support this estimate in the interests of the sons and daughters of the working classes, in order to give them the opportunity of becoming efficient in education and of being able to compete with the sons and daughters of the rich.

Sir J. D. REES: If these students cannot carry on without these buildings then I submit there is a case for providing the buildings. Although I believe the question of economy is paramount at present, I could not vote for cutting this Estimate out because I know the value of these studies in different parts of the Empire. Kew has been of the most enormous assistance, for instance, to the Local Governments in India in introducing cinchona, a specific against the disease of malarial fever. It has been experiments carried out with the help of Kew Gardens and of students from there which have enabled the authorities in India to fight this terrible scourge which kills more people than war or pestilence. For that reason, though I would put economy before everything, owing to the benefit which results from this, I could not support an Amendment to cut it out.

Mr. HOGGE: The hon. Member who spoke on behalf of the Labour party does not appreciate what this problem means. It is not a problem about children of rich or poor getting to work at six o'clock. Wales is not the only place in the United Kingdom where it is necessary to start at six o'clock. In Scotland children go twice the distances at early hours in the morning. That is beside the question altogether. These students are young
men and women of twenty-one and twenty-three, and probably a larger percentage of botanical and scientific students generally belong to what might be called the better-off classes, though all of us would like to see facilities given to the working classes to increase the numbers of their children taking part in these studies. What is happening to-day is that my right hon. Friend is taking £3,800 out of £7,100. The remainder of that will come up again next year, and you may be as sure as that you are sitting here that there will be a revised Estimate for that, just as there is a revised Estimate to-day, and that the £7,100 will be increased by another £2,900, or something like that. My right hon. Friend is attempting in the last days of the financial year to launch a proposal which ought to be discussed on the ordinary Estimates. If you give him the £3,800 to-day, he cannot spend it in the month of March. There is not a single word about building in the Estimate, and it does not say whether the premises are to be in Kew Gardens or outside, or what it is going to cost, They are bluffing this Committee into giving them the money today, so that next year they may come back with the revised Estimate for some £10,000 or £15,000 for an ill-digested scheme. If we mean all the things we say outside about economy, here is a case in point. There is no necessity why this Estimate should not be considered on the 1st of April, a much more appropriate date, and there is every reason why we should assert our authority to prevent this money being spent now.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: It seems to the Minister in charge to be a very small matter, but in point of fact a great point of principle is involved, and before I make up my mind on the subject I wish to have answers to one or two questions. The hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) asked why it was necessary to make this change now, and no reply has been given to that. The hon. Member for South Hammersmith (Sir W. Bull) said, would it not be possible to adapt the old Palace of Kew for the purpose for which this money is now to be expended, and until the right hon. Gentleman has answered these questions I am unable to say how I shall vote.

Sir A. MOND: The proposal is to purchase an existing house close to Kew
and to adapt it, and that is the reason why I am bringing this forward on a supplementary estimate and not waiting for a final estimate. There is a house in the market now which can be obtained on reasonable terms and which we are very anxious not to lose, because, as hon. Members must be aware, accommodation in Kew, as in other districts, and even more so in Kew, has become an almost impossible question. It is just the intensity of the difficulty which has promoted this scheme. I am asked what did the students do before. We had not got all these housing accommodation difficulties before the War, and Kew is in a particularly difficult situation, because large Government Departments have been out-housed there, and the result is that a large staff lives out there and has made the housing question practically impossible.

Mr. HOGGE: Why not clear them out?

Sir A. MOND: You cannot clear them out, because there is work that every Member of this House has insisted should be done. Obviously, if there were no difficulty in finding lodgings at Kew, this scheme would not have been brought forward. This hostel is not merely a place in which these students are going to be housed, but it is going to be adapted for lectures and for laboratories as well. There are sixty students, and they are all men. We are anxious to be able to buy at once, and we are afraid that if we wait prices will rise against us. Therefore, there is no object in delay. I can assure hon. Members that there is nothing to be gained in economy now by refusing to use the opportunity of obtaining premises which are available on favourable terms in order to bring the matter up later, when probably we shall have to buy those premises and similar premises for more money. With regard to the point raised about Kew Palace, there is no sanitation in Kew Palace. It has not been lived in for a hundred years, and I would not like to undertake to say what it would cost to make it a habitable dwelling place for sixty students. It would cost a great deal more than £3,800; and if you put another nought at the end of that sum it would probably be nearer the mark. I hope the Committee will now give me the Estimate, as I think I have established that the proposal is practical, businesslike, useful, and that it is really an educational
facility which is very much required by the Kew authorities. We have already discussed the point for some little time.

Sir F. BANBURY: We have not discussed this for very long, but I would point out that any time that has been wasted has been entirely the right hon. Gentleman's own fault, and if he had put his Estimates in such a form that the Committee could understand them we should then have known what we know now. It now appears that this is a new proposal altogether, that you should buy a house, not for the gardening staff or for the children of the working people, but for young men and women of twenty-two or twenty-three, mostly the sons and daughters of well-to-do people, and that in this house you should start a laboratory and a lecture room That is a very different thing from the acquisition of premises for a hostel for the gardening staff. As there are such a large number of Government Departments round about Kew they have taken up every available accommodation. If we had known all this at the beginning we could have discussed the matter at very much shorter length, but I maintained that what my hon. Friend the Member for East Grin-stead (Mr. Cautley) said is really the only thing which is to the point. I hope that very shortly these large Government staffs will disappear and be demobilised and that then there will be room for these students. If these students have up to the present been able to find accommodation, why not go on as they are now? They must be living somewhere now, and though I do not doubt it would be very much nicer and pleasanter for them to live in this hostel and to have the laboratories and lecture rooms, I say that we ought to be content with what we have put up with for the last twenty or thirty years and that this is not the time to come forward and propose this large expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman said it is only £7,100, but that argument could be used for every item, and until we say we will not spend the money, however good the object may be, we shall never succeed in reducing the expenditure of the country and bringing the finances of the country, which are in a very bad state, into a proper position.

Mr. SPENCER: I am very pleased that my hon. Friend (Mr. Griffiths) has indicated that the Labour party are going
to vote with the Government on this question. There seems to me to be an element of unreality altogether about this discussion. I cannot conceive of even the right hon. Baronet opposing this Vote had it been a Vote of the same amount for the extension of some barracks rather than for the provision of educational institutions. I am very much surprised indeed that the Mover of the Amendment has taken the view that he has in relation to this question. Let us look at the opposition that has been offered to the spending of this money. It is based upon a continuity of what has been done in the past, whether or not the past has been good. That is the basis of the whole of the opposition—what has been done in the past. Whether it has been good or not in the past, whether or not it has been satisfactory in the past, that is not asked. Whatever the past has been, whether good, bad, or indifferent, the proposal has been to continue that. I think it has been indicated by the Minister in charge that so far as the provisions are concerned they are totally inadequate.

Sir F. BANBURY: What the hon. Member says is exactly what I have been trying to do. I have been trying to get the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Estimates to do what he has done in the past.

Mr. SPENCER: And my point against that is this, you are offering that objection where the past has been efficient, good, or bad. Now the Minister comes down and says, he is proposing this because the past has not been good enough, and the present is being made worse because there is no accommodation for the students. Here is an institution that will last longer, I hope, than any Member in this House—an institution that will probably be there for the next 100, or probably 500, years. Is it not far better to establish a hostel of an educational character rather than that the students should come to London from, probably, all parts of the country not knowing where they are going. Hon. Members who live in London do not really know the difficulty of people who live out of London, and have to send their sons to London to be educated. My son happens to be in London, and I have had the utmost difficulty in finding him accommodation to follow his studies here. Other people have the
same difficulties, and I cannot conceive that any sane man would be in favour of supporting a state of affairs which makes it essential for students to travel 20 miles in the morning and 20 miles at night. It must mean a great loss of time, which might be spent in the pursuit of study, and because of the provision which is being made for the housing of students near the place where the practical side of their studies is being carried on, I hope the party to which I belong will support the Government.

Sir W. BULL: In justification of the question I put, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has considered Kew Palace as a hostel for students? Here is a valuable, old-fashioned, picturesque building which has not been inhabited, according to the hon. Gentleman, for 100 years, although I think it is 60 or 70 years. Here is a large

building lying empty, doing nothing; it is a splendid building with a good roof, and I would therefore, ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered the suitability of this building for the purpose?

Sir A. MOND: I understand that Kew Palace has been considered, and the conclusion come to was that it would be very-much more costly in any case to adapt this old building than the proposal I have now placed before the Committee, and I think very little consideration will show that to be the case. It is an old building with no sanitary arrangements and no drainage, and everybody knows that once you begin on that you will spend a very large sum of money.

Question put, "That Item E [New Works, Alterations and Additions] be omitted from the proposed Vote."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 269.

Division No. 28.]
AYES.
[5.35 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H (Devizes)
Hayday, Arthur
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest


Briant, Frank
Hills, Major John Waller
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Hinds, John
Perring, William George


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.


Cautley, Henry S.
Johnstone, Joseph
Redmond, Captain William Archer


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Kenyon, Barnet
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E. V


Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)
Lort-Williams, J.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Galbraith, Samuel
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Glanville, Harold James
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Gould, James C.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah



Gretton, Colonel John
Morrison, Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Hogge and Mr. Marriott.


NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Bowyer Captain G. E. W.
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Breese, Major Charles E.
Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Broad, Thomas Tucker
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Bromfield, William
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe)


Atkey, A. R.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
burdon, Colonel Rowland
Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)


Baird, John Lawrence
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)


Baldwin, Stanley
Butcher, Sir John George
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Cairns, John
Denison-Pender, John C.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Campbell, J. D. G.
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)


Barnett, Major R. W.
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry


Barnston, Major Harry
Cape, Thomas
Donald, Thompson


Barrand, A. R.
Carr, W. Theodore
Doyle, N. Grattan


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Duncannon, Viscount


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Casey, T. W.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Edwards, John K. (Glam., Neath)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Fell, Sir Arthur


Betterton, Henry B.
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.


Blgland, Alfred
Clough, Robert
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Coats, Sir Stuart
Foreman, Henry


Blair, Major Reginald
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Forrest, Walter


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Foxcroit, Captain Charles Talbot


Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Cope, Major Wm.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Sexton, James


Gilbert, James Daniel
Lindsay, William Arthur
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Lloyd, George Butter
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Glyh, Major Ralph
Lorden, John William
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Goff, Sir H. Park
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Simm, M. T.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Lunn, William
Sitch, Charles H.


Grant, James A.
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Spencer, George A.


Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Spoor, B. G.


Greig, Colonel James William
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James J.
Stanler, Captain Sir Beville


Griggs, Sir Peter
Magnus, Sir Philip
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Stanton, Charles B.


Grundy, T. W.
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Steel, Major S. Strang


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Mason, Robert
Stevens, Marshall


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Hallwood, Augustine
Mitchell, William Lane
Sturrock, J. Leng


Hallas, Eldred
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Sugden, w. H.


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Swan, J. E. C.


Hancock, John George
Morison, Thomas Brash
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin
Morrison-Bell, Major A. E.
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Myers, Thomas
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Hartshorn, Vernon
Neal, Arthur
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Haslam, Lewis
Nelson, R. F. W. R.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Tootill, Robert


Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.
Nield, Sir Herbert
Townley, Maximilian G.


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Turton, E. R.


Hirst, G. H.
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Waddington, R.


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Wallace, J.


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Parker, James
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Hood, Joseph
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Pearce, Sir William
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Hopkins, John W. W.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Peel, Lieut.-Col- R. F. (Woodbridge)
Waring, Major Walter


Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Howard, Major S. G.
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Whitla, Sir William


Hurd, Percy A.
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Wignall, James


Irving, Dan
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Purchase, H. G.
Williams, John (Glamorgan, Gower)


Jephcott, A. R.
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)


Jellett, William Morgan
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Jesson, C.
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Jodrell, Neville Paul
Rees, Sir John D. (Nottingham, East)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Woolcock, William James U.


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Keliaway, Frederick George
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Kidd, James
Rodger, A. K.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


King, Commander Henry Douglas
Rose, Frank H.
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rothschild, Lionel de
Younger, Sir George


Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)
Rounded, Colonel R. F.



Lane-Fox, G. R.
Royce, William Stapleton
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)
Lord E. Talbot and Capt. Guest.


Lawson, John J.
Seager, Sir William



Question put, and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.

Sir F. BANBURY: Is this the Vote for the Houses of Parliament Buildings? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]

Sir J. D. REES: Have you called for the Vote for the Diplomatic and Consular Services, Mr. Whitley?

The CHAIRMAN: This is the Vote we have been on for a couple of hours, and I wish to dispose of it.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,000, be granted to His Majesty, to
defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for expenditure in respect of Houses of Parliament Buildings.

Viscount CURZON: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote for an explanation as to the increased charge for fuel on the year in connection with the engineering arrangements. Certain hon. Members of the House are under the impression, I believe, that the Lord Chancellor's bath, which was thrown out by the Committee last year, has been reinserted. That, they think, accounts for the increased cost of fuel heating the water for that bath.

Sir A. MOND: The bath has never been reinserted following its rejection by the Committee last year. The explanation of the increase is of a more prosaic character. It is not a question of increased quantity, but of increased price.

DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £207,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for expenditure in respect of diplomatic and consular buildings, and for the maintenance of certain cemeteries abroad.

Sir J. D. REES: The First Commissioner of Works has been exposed to some rather unreasonable criticism, and I do not expect him to go into all the details. But I note that there is an item for new-works at Harbin, by which I suppose is meant Kharbin, the capital of Manchuria. Why was it necessary to purchase a new site for the Consulate there? One knows that Manchuria has been rather in the limelight of late. Still, this expenditure does seem to require some explanation, seeing it is in that remote part of the world. Then I notice No. 10: "Teheran, conversion of stables into garage, £555." Are there now roads there for motor-cars, or is there merely a road to take our representative from his house at Teheran to Gulchek, his summer quarters? This seems unnecessary expenditure, and I should like what information there may be about it. I come to Item 11: "The Hague, alterations to Chancery, £230." Once there used to be very busy Hague Conventions, but as they have proved to be disastrous failures and accomplished nothing that they were designed to accomplish, and as the present—I will not say fashionable—proposal is to put everything under the League of Nations, which, it is hoped, will be more successful, I should rattier like to know why it is considered necessary to have further alterations to the Hague Chancery? I should have thought the tendency there, in view of the decrease of functions, would have been to decrease, and not to increase, expenditure; also, in view of the League of Nations, and not Hague Conventions, being in favour with those who believe that the affairs of nations, and matters of peace and war, can be
satisfied by this kind of function and this class of aspiration! I turn to Item 9: "Morocco, purchase of the freeholds of the Consular buildings at Casablanca, Rabat, and Mogador." The affairs of that State are generally of such a fluctuating character that between the time of the acquisition of a freehold and its use those concerned might perhaps be required to be in a totally different situation. I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman can satisfy my curiosity in these various particulars.

Captain STANLEY WILSON: Other Members of the House are not going to be quite so kind to the right hon. Gentleman, the First Commissioner, as my hon. Friend has been. It is highly probable, in regard to this Vote, there may some criticism. In the absence of anti-waste Members of this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—I am referring specifically to the one anti-waste Member who was elected on that issue. As he is not present this afternoon some of us have to deal with the matter. There is also the Labour party, who have made speeches and have voted in favour of increasing the expenditure. I do not think we can look to them for much criticism against the increased expenditure that is being put upon the country by the present Government. Opinion in the country is declaiming against the Government as a profligate Government, and suggesting that this expenditure is helping to keep up the price of food. It is, therefore, the duty of the other Members of this House to criticise the Government in regard to the various items of expenditure. I hope some other Members will criticise the votes with perhaps greater ability than I myself am able to do. In respect to the question raised by my hon. Friend beneath me (Sir J. D. Rees) I am somewhat hazy as to the geography of Manchuria. Perhaps the First Commissioner can inform us as to whether this site for a new consulate is still in our hands, or whether it is in the hands of the Soviet Government—[An HON. MKMBER: "The Chinese!"]—or whether it is now in Bolshevik territory? I rather fancy that the money has been recklessly expended, and that it is useless to this country. However, we do not know that when peace has been made with the Soviet Government, but that it may come in useful.
Possibly the principal item the House will criticise this afternoon is the expenditure of £220,000 for the Peace Conference in Paris. Throughout the whole country there is a feeling against the absolutely reckless and extravagant way the Government ran the Peace Conference, and the huge staffs that were located in Paris hotels. Either two or three hotels were taken completely over for the period of the Conference. I should like to ask the First Commissioner the exact position we are in now in Paris? Have we still any of these hotels, and have we still staffs engaged there? This is an important question and one which the House has every right to know about. I should be glad to hear how the right hon. Gentleman can justify this huge expenditure in Paris.

Mr. HOGGE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down preached a sermon to the members of the Labour party on this side of the House, accusing them of making speeches and supporting expenditure. But he himself made a speech on a similar subject and voted in the same lobby with the Labour party in favour of spending money. I should like to put several questions, which, I think, is the best way of getting at matters in view of the experience we have had this afternoon. In connection with the maintenance of "certain cemeteries abroad," may I ask are they all related to the war cemeteries recently created on the battle front? Then with regard to the Peace Conference in Paris, why is this put down under the letters D D—and hon. Members will notice the curious use of these words in describing expenditure? The total is £220,000. If hon. Members will look at the expenditure they will see it is divided into a curious number of heads. We are told, in the first place, that the money was required for rent of premises. What premises were taken in Paris for the purposes of the discussions of the Peace Conference? Then we have the item "furniture." Was it impossible to find a house furnished, and what furniture was required for these premises? Could it not have been taken from one or other of the hotels in this country which were commandeered?
There is the Item "alteration to buildings," which seems to me to be an extraordinary waste of public money for a function of this kind. One would have
thought it was, surely, possible for the few weeks for which this was necessary to find buildings to carry on the work without subjecting them to alterations' This seems to me to be a reasonable criticism. Not only were these things apparently required, but there was "erection of temporary buildings, and other services incidental to the provision of accommodation for the British delegation to the Peace Conference." What were these incidental services? One heard at the time—it was difficult to get information from Ministers—that large numbers of people went over to Paris who, some of us think, were not required there for the purposes of the business. We were told about the typists that went over to the Peace Conference being given a certain money allowance with which to clothe themselves, in order, I suppose, that they might keep up the dignity of the British Empire while they were in Paris! What money was wasted in this particular way? Was it not possible to do the thing in a much cheaper fashion? Anyhow, here are five items, running up to a quarter of a million of public money, which my right hon. Friend managed to squander. As a result of that he has not even brought back—though this is a subject I cannot discuss on this Vote—the peace that the Conference set out to achieve, and in connection with which they spent this money.

Mr. WILSON-FOX: There are one or two further explanations I should like to ask for. We found it very difficult to ascertain what this £3,800 was required for. There is here a reference to the maintenance of certain cemeteries—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I may save the time of the Committee if I explain that in these estimates the heading is taken from the main vote of the year, but only the items for which additional money is required are brought in, and only these matters are open for discussion on the Supplementary Vote.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. WILSON-FOX: The next question I wish to ask is to what extent the hon. Gentleman exercises personal supervision over this expenditure in Paris. Did the right hon. Gentleman assume responsibility for carrying out the arrangements, or are they done by some other Department. I am glad to see that the amount of £35,000 was obtained as the proceeds of the sale of some premises at Kobé,
but I am not very pleased to see that amount set down as an appropriation in aid. I have found in the course of various inquiries that these appropriation in aids are liable to considerable abuse, because when a department has revenue either from sales or windfalls this brings into their coffers large sums of money which leads to extravagant expenditure. I want to know whether the expenditure of this money has been sanctioned.

Sir F. BANBURY: I wish to say a word or two about this item of £220,000 for the Peace Conference in Paris. If hon. Members will look at the Vote they will see there was no original estimate for this, and it is practically a new service. There being no original estimate, I cannot understand what a revised estimate means, because there cannot be any revised estimate under those circumstances. As far as I can remember this Conference started some time in December last year, and was over by about May or June. At present the Peace Conference is going on in London, and I do not know whether we are spending another £220,000 in the same way. At present there is very little going on in Paris in this connection, but I want to know what is being spent there at the present time under this heading. What has happened to those temporary buildings which are referred to? Have they been parted with or pulled down? It is a good many years since I was in Paris, but when I was there there were always plenty of rooms and houses to be got, and why it was necessary to erect temporary buildings or to alter buildings I cannot conceive.
After all, at the end of a great war, when we have gone through the worst times this country has ever gone through, these people might have economised in these matters in Paris. There was no need to build all these temporary buildings, and buy all this furniture, and spend £220,000 to make a great show in Paris. I would like to know if this amount covers such things as champagne, food, balls, and dances. We have been told that balls were given to which English people were invited. I think those representing this country might have taken that money out of their own pockets, and not put it to the expense of the taxpayer. This is
really a very serious thing, and I am glad that the Committee has had an opportunity of criticising it. One hon. Member has asked whether this is all the expenditure, and I have heard a statement that it is still going on. I should like to know how much is going on, and when it is going to stop, and whether we are going to be given full particulars so that the House and the country may know what has been spent on joy rides in Paris. We want a full explanation. I am sorry there are no representatives of the Liberal Party present to support economy.

Sir A. MOND: I think it would be better for me at this stage to deal with some of the questions which have been addressed to me, and about which information is required. I will deal with the last question first—namely, the cost of the Paris Peace Conference. I thought hon. Members would want some explanation of what appears to be a very considerable sum of money for the accommodation of the Peace Delegates who went from this country to attend the Conference. It has been my duty to find accommodation for a staff of 600, and for the members of the British Delegation and the Indian Delegation. We took five-hotels and three other premises, and two of these were exclusively used as offices Two large hotels we had to fit up as offices.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Americans only had two hotels.

Sir A. MOND: I think the Americans had more and they spent more than we did. We had to do an enormous amount of work. It was necessary, both for the convenience of the delegates and the important position we held, that our representatives should be placed in buildings of some standing as regards their situation. I daresay this could have been carried out somewhat more cheaply, but we ought to remember that we were-looked upon as the leading Power there. Some of the other smaller Powers did not hesitate to occupy expensive buildings during the course of the Conference, and I do not think it would have been fitting if the British Government had gone for accommodation into some of the suburbs of Paris. We had the Hotel Majestic, the Villa Majestic, Hotel d'Albe, Hotel Baltimore, Hotel Astoria,
Hoted la Pérouse, 46, Rue la Pérouse, 23, Rue Mitot, and printing tents at Auteuil. We undoubtedly did the thing not only very well, but we did it with extreme care. It was laid down that hotels should be run by British labour, and that only British subjects should be employed, in order to avoid any leakage of information. That involved taking other premises for the staff, and all this helped to swell the expense. The Government decided that it was most important we should have our own printing machinery and our own printing offices entirely under our own supervision at Paris, so that highly confidential documents would be in the control of British officers. My Department had to undertake all this work at short notice. They did not know when the Peace Conference was to take place, and, therefore, this provision had to be made quietly and in a short space of time. Thanks to the courtesy of the French Government, we were enabled to erect on the Auteuil Steeplechase Course huts of the old Army pattern and to establish our printing machinery there. Thus all the documents were under our control, and the temporary buildings referred to in the Estimate are those particular huts which fulfilled so useful and interesting a rôle. I should say, in view of the remarks of some hon. Members, that I was not responsible for the clothes of the typists, or for the dances or for the bands. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or champagne!"] No, nor for the champagne.

Major LLOYD-GREAME: Then what does the Estimate cover?

Sir A. MOND: The items for accommodation are made up as follows:—Rent £133,000, maintenance £12,600, reinstatement £48,651, fuel £9,600, staff £5,550, and miscellaneous over £10,000. The Hotel Majestic was a very large and somewhat expensive building, but it must be remembered that we were not in a position to commandeer hotels in France as here. Still the French Government assisted us in every possible way to obtain what we required at reasonable figures. It should not be forgotten that it was almost impossible to get a room in Paris. That is borne out by recent experience, and we certainly could not have found accommodation for the staff by tailing casual rooms and odd hotels. We had to deal with the thing in a large manner and take hotels.
We did not take the most expensive in Paris. We contented ourselves with the Majestic and the other hotels I have mentioned. Then we had to take out a good deal of furniture. Much of the office furniture had to be brought from this country. It was absolutely unobtainable in France I inquired whether it would be possible to get the furniture in Paris and found it was not. Indeed it was much more economical to bring it over from here and re-sell it when finished with. I should like to read the items showing the rents of the various hotels in francs:—Hotel Majestic, 3,000,000 francs; Villa Majestic, 145,000: Hotel d'Albe, 200,000; Hotel Baltimore, 213,000; Hotel Astoria, 711,000; Hotel la Pérouse, 23,700. The maintenance cost £12,000 and reinstatement £48,600. The question of reinstatement was a very serious and difficult matter. I can assure the Committee that the negotiations were carefully conducted in order to obtain the hotels on the best possible terms. Every care was taken, and when an hon. Member asks whether anybody was responsible, I can only tell him that my Department had over in Paris an architect who worked with great energy and efficiency, and did his best to save money and to carry through matters as economically as possible. A great part of the secretarial staff of the office were taken up with this work. With regard to the question of economy, it was not possible for us to lay down the necessities of the staff, nor what its number should be. That was a matter which had to be decided by a higher power than my Department. We had to provide the accommodation and to carry through all the negotiations in regard to compensation and reinstatement. I repeat that every possible care was taken to arrive at as cheap results as possible.

Captain WILSON: Have we now evacuated all these hotels, or are we still "carrying on" in Paris?

Sir A. MOND: All the hotels have now been evacuated. I do not think we retain any at the present time. There are some smaller buildings which are being retained for the purposes of offices in view of the work still going on there, work which will probably continue for a considerable time But all the large hotels have been handed back, and so far as they are concerned the transaction is
closed. Members should know that the transaction were carried out in large part with the rate of exchange at a little over 33 francs.
I have been asked question with regard to the Consular Offices. I will deal with the case of Harbin first. This is a most important port, and it was found perfectly impossible to obtain a residence for the Consul and his family. It was, therefore, decided that the best thing to do was to buy a site, and the Consul, finding a favourable opportunity and a favourable rate of exchange, did so, and the site has now, with the consent of the Treasury, been taken over. With regard to Teheran, I understand that our representative there now uses motor cars, and it has, therefore, become necessary to erect a garage. In regard to Morocco, the position is very serious. The buildings occupied at Casablanca, Rabat and Mogador were held for the Arabs for use as Consular buildings only. The French have now taken over the lands administration, and have offered to the British Government the freehold on favourable terms, the figures representing less than a quarter of the value placed on the land alone. This will enable His Majesty's Government to deal with freehold properties of increasing value in the event of the Consulate having to be removed outside the old native town, a matter even now under consideration.
Then I come to the Hague Chancery. The alterations there consist of making a new entrance to the Chancery, as hitherto there has been only one entrance for both the Legation and the Chancellerie—a very unsatisfactory arrangement indeed, and we are providing an additional entrance for Chancery business only. The sanitary accommodation, too, was very unsatisfactory, and various alterations had to be made. I am afraid these services have been very much cut down, and I have no doubt that in the future further demands will have to be made in respect of them, for the condition of many of the Consulates is anything but satisfactory. Of course, the increased cost of building in all countries has affected the Estimates. I was asked one question about an Appropriation in Aid regarding the sale of the freehold of the Kobe Consulate. There is no connection between the £35,000, the proceeds of that sale, and the £11,600 for proposed works. The
hon. Member also suggested that the Department got an Appropriation in Aid and promptly spent it on something else. But he overlooked the fact that this did not appear in the Estimates at all. My Department never spends any money without Treasury authority. I do not know that any Department does. Therefore, there is no reason for suspicion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I very much disagree with the hon. Gentleman (Sir J. D. Rees) on the question of objecting to this expenditure on consulates. In many cases our consulates are a disgrace to the country, and I am delighted to see that some expenditure is being made on them, especially in the East, where a good consular building uplifts our prestige. I hope the Committee will not grudge that. As for the explanation we have had of the expenditure at Paris I do not think we can blame him at all. He had to find accommodation for this swollen and extraordinary staff. I hope the Committee now understand the feeling of a man who, after a terrific orgy the night before, in which a lot of damage has been done, is presented with a very long bill, having unnecessarily spent a lot of money on champagne and entertaining unnecessary people. That is the position in which we find ourselves, and all we can do is to pay with as good a grace as possible, and thank our stars that we have not to pay more, because if any Member on this side of the House at the time of the Peace Conference had thought of criticising it he would have been howled down as sure as I am standing here.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I am sure the Committee are obliged to the right hon. Baronet for the careful and detailed explanation which he has given of the expenditure at the Peace Conference, but I think there are still one or two questions on which they would like further satisfaction. He said we did the thing very well. I think the general impression of the Committee will be that the people in Paris did themselves very well. I should like to know whether the account we have here of £220,000 for accommodation is a final account. That did not appear to me clearly from the right hon. Baronet's speech. He told us that certain hotels had been evacuated, but I did not understand whether it was the case or not that any further account for
accommodation would be presented. The right hon. Baronet referred to the resale of furniture. I want to know whether that re-sale has taken place or not, and if it has, where it appears in these accounts as an Appropriation in Aid. If there has been a re-sale of furniture I take it it ought to appear in these accounts as an Appropriation in Aid, and I do not find it. The right hon. Baronet has taken some credit to himself for the fact that the exchange worked out on the average at 33 francs. What would have been the Bill to be presented if it had been at the normal? We are asked to provide a sum of £220,000 in sovereigns. If it had not been for the favourable exchange I suppose the bill would have been for £300,000. That is not a point on which the right hon. Baronet has any reason to take credit to himself. It is a very fortunate accident for us that we are not being asked today for something over £300,000 instead of £220,000.

Mr. SPENCER: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £50,000.
An hon. Member has twitted the Labour party with going out into the country and crying out against the waste of the Government, yet when they are face to face with a Vote they are prepared to vote for the Government continuing to spend money. So far as the educational grant is concerned we were prepared to support the Government in their endeavour to establish a hostel at Kew. Other hon. Members were opposed to that scheme, yet upon this item, which is far larger and which is far more unsatisfactory, they are not prepared to take any definite step to force this to a Division. I notice the conspicuous absence of the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge), who laboured this question of £3,800, and now that there is a question of at least £220,000 for a certain item in connection with the Peace Conference, he is not here to challenge it at all. [Interruption.] I would not have made the remark had I known he was called away for that purpose, and I unreservedly withdraw it. If this is taken to a Division, I am quite convinced that the Labour party will vote against this extraordinary sum. I have no means of ascertaining how far it was essential to take a staff of 600 people to carry out that very important work, but it seems most extraordinary. Then we have been told that the best
hotels in Paris were taken, and enormous sums have had to be paid for the purpose. We are prepared to go into the Lobby, I feel certain, with the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), if he will move a reduction of the sum. He and others are standing out for economy, and are looking to the Labour party, which is crying out for economy, and which is said to be voting for large sums of money. If I knew the rules of the House, I would move to reduce this sum.

Sir F. BANBURY: It is very simple. The hon. Member only has to say, "I move to reduce the sum by £100."

Mr. SPENCER: I am much obliged for the information, and I beg to move that the Vote be reduced not by £100, but by £50,000. If we are going to have economy we had better make a start and have real economy, and not quarrel with small sums for educational purposes while letting sums of this character go by. Here is a sum for accommodation alone which would have more than paid the services of 3,000 workmen for a week in any great undertaking in this country. We are opposed to paying this enormous sum for the accommodation of those who attended the Peace Conference, and if we are going to go in for economy it should begin at home amongst those Ministers who are responsible for carrying on the Government, and I take it they are responsible, notwithstanding the fact that the right hon. Baronet says he could not avoid this, and he had to find some sort of accommodation. I take it he found the best accommodation he could in Paris to uphold the prestige of the country and it is for that purpose that we are paying this Bill of £220,000. It means not only that the heads of the Government have been housed in the best hotels he could find in Paris, but all the subordinate staff has been housed in the best hotels also. I take it the most up-to-date rooms and the finest furniture have been acquired, and that is the way this Government is spending the money of the country.

Mr. CAUTLEY: The answer to the point made by the last speaker is, that so far as the last Vote of £3,800 was concerned, the money had not been spent. This House had control over it, and many of us say that at a time like this requiring economy, the money should not be spent. In the present instance, however,
we have a Vote of £220,000 where the money has been spent and all that we can do is to pay the bill.

Mr. SPENCER: Has this House passed the money beforehand?

Mr. CAUTLEY: No. The whole of the £220,000 has been spent and it is, therefore, idle for the hon. Member to move a reduction. We have to pay the bill. What I would ask is, why was not a supplementary estimate presented before now? Why did the right hon. Gentleman take upon himself to spend this money and incur these liabilities without any authority from the House? The practice is much too frequent. I also want to know whether this is a complete estimate up to the end of the financial year, or whether there will be a further estimate for the buildings which are still occupied for the remainder of the financial year?

Captain LOSEBY: I dissociate myself from what appears to me to be niggling criticism of this Vote of £220,000. I protest against the idea that British delegates, considering the part that Great Britain has played in the War, should be housed somewhere in the back streets of Paris. We have the honour of this country to uphold, and I am told, not by anyone who supports the Government, but from an independent source, that we have every reason to be extremely grateful to our representatives in Paris, not only to those in high places, but to all our representatives at the Peace Conference. When one takes account of the colossal task that these delegates had to perform and the manner in which it was performed, I do not think that we ought light-heartedly to indulge on these Estimates in charges suggesting great extravagance; charges in which I do not believe there is one word of truth. I am glad that the Government saw fit to house our delegates as they should be housed, and I protest against any charge of extravagance.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMPSON: I do not propose to say anything about this item of the Peace Conference. It would not be proper for me to do so. I am very grateful to the last speaker for what he has said. I want to speak on another point in regard to Item B, which consists of a sum of £11,230 estimated for under
two heads; in the first place the anticipated loss in exchange on remittances to China, Japan and Persia, and the increase in the cost of building work there. I take it that the building work there is only the ordinary structural repairs, and that the sums to be expended are only the ordinary payments for building work. I have nothing to say in regard to the Estimates for the increase in the cost of building. I presume there, like it is all over the world, the cost of building must have increased. Neither have I anything to say by itself as regards the item for the anticipated loss on exchange. It is quite clear that where silver payments have to be made, as in the Far East, where the currency is silver currency, there will be a loss on the exchange. Would it not be a little more accurate to show this anticipated loss in exchange not on this account, but in the account of the Treasury Chest Fund? I believe that the original intention in instituting the Treasury Chest Fund was that it should operate precisely in cases of this kind. Among ether things, its function is to do that which in ordinary business is carried out by what is called an exchange account. Any man who conducts a large business involving different currencies always creates an exchange account. In the course of time the practice has gradually grown up under which it has been accepted that the Treasury Chest was only for payments for the Army or the Navy in out stations abroad. Is that not rather a departure from the original intention in regard to the provision of this Treasury Chest Fund? I looked up the Act to see what was said when the Treasury Chest Fund was established. The Treasury Chest Fund is a sort of annual bank, which is opened and closed every year for the purpose of laying down money for expenditure on public services abroad. In recent years it has come to be regarded as a fund to be expended only on naval and military services, but I believe that is wrong The Act says:
The Treasury may employ the Treasury Chest Fund in making temporary advances for any public service The…… Treasury shall at the same time prepare an account, showing for the same financial year the profit and loss arising out of the employment of the Treasury Chest Fund during the year, whether from exchange, expenses of remittance of specie, or otherwise howsoever,
showing clearly that it was originally intended to be used, not merely for naval and military services, but for all public services, and in the second place that it was contemplated that it would be used for the purposes of an exchange account. It is perhaps too much to expect that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury can give an explanation offhand of this rather obscure point, but if he can tell us anything I shall be grateful. If I am right in my contention that this was the original intention of the Act, will it be considered desirable in future to try to revert to that practice rather than adhere to this practice which has grown up in recent years, and which I believe to be the wrong practice?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): This question of the Treasury Chest is like the trumpet of an old war, and it reminds one of the discussions in the happy days long ago when the right hon. Baronet used to hold an enthralled House on that very technical and abstruse subject. I think the short answer is that the operations of the Treasury Chest are conducted with such places abroad as have stationed there officers of the Treasury Chest. There are eleven such stations dotted about in various parts of the world, and it is quite true, as my hon. Friend says, that to-day the bulk of the transactions that go through those officers are transactions in connection with the payments of those sections of the Army and Navy who are stationed in the remoter quarters of the globe. Officers of the Treasury Chest Fund are generally military officers, who are paymasters very often, and specially selected for this work, and whose duty it is to report direct to the Treasury in England of the transactions that take place through them. You cannot conduct this business where you have no appointed officer. Therefore, in such cases as are referred to the business has to be done by letter. For the purposes of the Committee the practice that we are following in this Estimate is the more convenient. The usual practice is that where there is a Treasury Chest officer the business is transacted through him, but where there is not a charge is made direct to the departmental account and brought up in Committee in this House in the usual way. In this particular case we are dealing with countries, such as Persia, China
and Japan, where the exchanges have been rapidly going against us. Provision, therefore, has to be made in this account for the loss that may be expected owing to the rapid loss on exchange since the contracts were made. If the loss is greater than anticipated a further Supplementary Estimate would be necessary, but if the loss is less than anticipated that would be a saving in the Vote and would be returned in due course to the Exchequer. We have here a plain statement on the face of the Vote of what we may expect to lose owing to the peculiar conditions of the currency, and I think that is much the more straightforward way of dealing with the matter. People know what is happening. If an account like that was hidden in the Treasury Chest Account, I do not think there is one hon. Member who would understand it except my hon. Friend who has raised the question. My hon. Friend is the only Member of the Committee, now present, who has made a study of this subject and who would be able to pick out this particular item in the Treasury Chest Account. I hope the explanation I have given has been satisfactory, and that the Committee will be content to leave the matter as it is.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: So far as the Treasury Chest is concerned, I think the explanation of the hon. Gentleman is perfectly satisfactory if only we could understand that when there is a gain on the exchange that gain would come back to the Treasury. We all know in connection with these Votes that when any Department makes a profit or a saving on a Vote, that saving is not returned to the Treasury, but is used by the Department in further extension of expenditure on that Vote, and that savings of that nature on these small Votes enables the Department to spend more money. In old days, when we had very few Supplementary Estimates, the Government would never have dreamed of putting a charge like this in a Supplementary Estimate. It is only when we have seventy or eightly of these Supplementary Estimates that we have a charge of this nature put in a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. BALDWIN: The general money conditions in that part of the world must be considered. This great rise has occurred since the Estimates were introduced.

7.0 P.M.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The great rise will mean an increase in the size of the Vote. If the rise were small you would still have to have a Supplementary Estimate. But I rise to deal with the expenditure in Paris in connection with the Peace Treaty. I do not agree with the proposition that the honour of England depends on the amount of splash that we make in Paris, and the amount of hotel accommodation provided for the representatives of this country.

Captain LOSEBY: I said nothing of the kind. What I said was that it was not reasonable to suggest that the representatives of the British Empire should be otherwise than properly housed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The representatives of England would be more suitably housed in dingy surroundings more in consonance with the home conditions than in palatial hotels called the Majestic on one side, and the Astoria on the other. The Americans provided hotel accommodation for their representatives in the Hotel Crillon, and these representatives both slept and carried on business in that hotel. But we had the Majestic for our people to sleep in and the Astoria for them to work in, and if a person went to the Astoria looking for someone he would be told that the person was in the Majestic, and if he went to the Majestic he would be told to go to the Astoria. The simplification of having one hotel resulted not only in economy but in a great deal better despatch of business.

Mr. HAILWOOD: Is it not against the factory laws of the country to work and sleep in the same building.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. Member has never seen either the Astoria or the Majestic, or he would not compare them with factories. It was difficult enough to get at a Minister there, even when one went to the right hotel. We have got before us an account for more than £220,000, but that is by no means the full bill which we have got to pay. We have taken no account here of the bill which was run up by the Admiralty. I understand that the First Lord kept a flat there permanently, though he only visited it once or twice. Then there is no account of the War Office expenditure in Paris or the Food Ministry expenditure or of the
salaries that were spent there. The House should have figures showing the total expenditure. It was much more like £2,000,000, and before we vote this sum representing this much larger item, we ought to be told what the larger item was.
Our conduct of affairs in Paris was extremely extravagant. Advantage was taken of the work going on there, for a great many people to take unnecessary trips to Paris at Government expense. If rigid economy had been exercised by the Treasury, and still more so by the different departments concerned, the country might have been saved nearly half a million. Unfortunately it was not until the expenditure was nearly over that the outcry for economy began in this country in August, 1919. I shall support my hon. Friend if he goes to a Division to emphasise the fact that I have nothing to do with this extravagant expenditure in Paris. The hon. Member opposite said that as the money was spent it was useless to oppose the Estimate. To adopt that view would be to surrender the rights of Parliament. To say that expenditure must be passed sub silentio because the money had been spent would be surrendering a power that it took Parliament centuries to acquire. The very essence of bringing Estimates before us is to show that the House has control over the expenditure of money, even though in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the money has been already spent.
I wish now to refer to the strange case of Harbin where we are acquiring a site for a consulate. The hon. Gentleman said that it was not in Russia but in China. Though it is not technically Russia, yet the coinage used in Harbin is Russian roubles. I should have thought that £5,600 in British money would not only buy a consulate site, but at the present value of the rouble would buy out the whole town of Harbin. In any case speculation in land in Harbin must be a risky matter at the present time, for though it is not technically in Russia the population is Russian and the sentiment of the working class is extremely Bolsheviki, and I hope that the Government will exercise restraint in going in for land speculation in that particular town. I imagine that Harbin is governed by the British, American and Japanese consuls. They are the autocrats of Harbin, the de facto governors of the
town, and would like to be housed well. It is the habit in China for all our representatives to have magnificent compounds. The legation at Pekin covers, I should think, two hundred acres. It has a magnificent compound, originally arranged for defence, but that is no reason why in Harbin we should go in for the same sized accommodation. We do not want an elaborate fortified compound. Fortifications of that sort merely invite attack. When we speak of land for £5,600, what exactly is the area which we have acquired for this consulate site? The reduction of the Vote deals primarily with Paris, but may be held to include this expenditure on the consulate in Harbin.

Major LLOYD-GREAME: I have hunted through the various documents in order to find what are the other items of expenditure which were incurred at the Peace Conference. I am not sure whether any representative of the Government will be able to tell us what money we have already voted. When I look at the Foreign Office Vote, I see that obviously the amount of money put down there is quite insufficient for the purpose. Obviously, it is for the convenience of the House that we should consider as one proposition the expenditure of Government money at the Peace Conference. We should be able to consider it as a whole, and have a complete picture of it. This would save a great deal of time If all the money spent at the Peace Conference were spread over six Estimates, we should probably have six Debates on the one subject; whereas a general Debate on the subject would be more desirable. The Government should tell us exactly what the expenditure at the Peace. Conference was, in order that the House may come to a conclusion as to whether the expenditure was reasonable or not.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I wish to join in protesting against the extravagance of

the Paris expenditure. We cannot undo the evil that has been done, but this is the first time that the Vote has been before the Committee, and it is the only opportunity we have had of making a protest against it. We believe all the accounts to be grossly extravagant. Many of us have not been able to go over to test for ourselves, but from reports that reach us there is no doubt that a large amount of money has been spent on a huge staff, and if we judge results over there by what we see at home, we know that a Government department in seeking accommodation for itself and its staff does not run on ordinary business lines, but seeks to magnify the dignity of its office all the time. I may recall to the House that, when one Ministry had to go to Leeds last year on a matter which did not require a large staff, a big hotel was commandeered and a huge staff was taken down there, and it was obvious to all the people in that district that there was an extraordinary expenditure of public money on what was purely staff work, which was of no utility. If that was the principle on which work was done in Paris we have reason to make this protest. We all agree that the dignity of the Empire and of the position which we like to hold must be maintained, but as the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Wedgwood) has so well said, that does not consist in the amount of splash which we make and the amount of extravagance which we have. Therefore, as a protest and a warning to the Government to say "Do not do it again," I hope that the hon. Member who moved this Amendment will go to a Division. We all yield lip service to economy, but when it comes to a test we should show the sincerity of that lip service in the Division Lobby.

Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £157,900 be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 64; Noes, 222.

Division No. 29.]
AYES.
[7.15 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon F. D.
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Adamson, Rt. Hon William
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Grundy, T. W.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Hallas, Eldred


Briant, Frank
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)
Hartshorn, Vernon


Bromfield, William
France, Gerald Ashburner
Hayday, Arthur


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Galbraith, Samuel
Hayward, Major Evan


Cairns, John
Glanville, Harold James
Hirst, G. H.


Cape, Thomas
Gould, James C.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John


Holmes, J. Stanley
Sexton, James
Wignall, James


Irving, Dan
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Lunn, William
Sitch, Charles H.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Smith, W. R, (Wellingborough)
Williams, John (Glamorgan, Gower)


MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Spoor, B. C.
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Marks, Sir George Croydon
Stanton, Charles B.
Wood, Major M. M (Aberdeen, C.)


Myers, Thomas
Swan, J. E. C.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)



Redmond, Captain William Archer
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Richardson, R, (Houghton-le-Spring)
Tootill, Robert
Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Spencer.


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Waterson, A. E.



Royce, William Stapleton
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.



NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Morison, Thomas Brash


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morrison, Hugh


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Gilbert, James Daniel
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Neal, Arthur


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Nelson, R. F. W. R.


Atkey, A. R.
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Newman, Colonel J. R. P, (Flnchley)


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Gregory, Holman
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Baird, John Lawrence
Greig, Colonel James William
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Baldwin, Stanley
Gretton, Colonel John
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Griggs, Sir Peter
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark


Barlow, Sir Montague
Hailwood, Augustine
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Parker, James


Barrle, Charles Coupar
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Hanna, George Boyle
Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Perkins, Walter Frank


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Haslam, Lewis
Perring, William George


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.


Blair, Major Reginald
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Slake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hills, Major John Waller
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hinds, John
Rees, Sir John D. (Nottingham, East)


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Reid, D. D.


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hopkins, John W. W.
Remnant, Colonel Sir James F.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)


Brown, Captain D. C.
Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rodger, A. K.


Butcher, Sir John George
Jellett, William Morgan
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Campbell, J. D. G.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Johnstone, Joseph
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, putney)


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Seager, Sir William


Carr, W. Theodore
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Cautley, Henry S.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Kellaway, Frederick George
Simm, M. T.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Chadwick, R. Burton
Kidd, James
Stanler, Captain Sir Beville


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm.,W.)
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Steel, Major S. Strang


Clough, Robert
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Stevens, Marshall


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lloyd, George Butler
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Cope, Major Wm.
Lloyd-Greame, Major P.
Sugden, W. H.


Courthope, Major George L.
Lorden, John William
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lort-Williams, J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Dalzlel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lyon, Laurance
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Tickler, Thomas George


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Turton, E. R.


Donald, Thompson
M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Vickers, Douglas


Doyle, N. G rattan
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Waddington, R.


Duncannon, Viscount
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wallace, J.


Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Mason, Robert
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Falcon, Captain Michael
Matthews, David
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.
Whitla, Sir William


Fell, Sir Arthur
Mitchell, William Lane
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Foreman, Henry
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Forrest, Walter
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Winterton, Major Earl


Weimer, Viscount
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward
Younger, Sir George


Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William



Woolcock, William James U.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.


Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

REVENUS BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £25, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain and certain Post Offices abroad.

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not propose to detain the Committee on this subject more than two or three minutes, because I do not intend to say anything about the merits of the various items covered by this Vote. But I think that at this stage it will be for the convenience of the Committee that a Provisional Estimate relating to these items should come on, and that this Vote should be put down in this form to give an opportunity for consideration. There is a considerable problem of public building which the House will be asked to discuss, and which will no doubt be debated in due course and defended by the Ministers concerned. It will be claimed that there is great necessity for getting on with the various buildings. I have put down this Vote as a means of maintaining Parliamentary control, so that I have only put down a token figure. If the Committee approves of that, money can then be spent on this Vote on account up to the end of the financial year, and they may possibly commence with the sites and the preliminary work in connection with the erection of the buildings in the months of April, May and June, which are the best part of the year for begining building operations. If an Estimate had not been presented in this way, we should have had to put down a Supplementary Estimate, which would not come before the House until May or June, and might not be passed until the end, of July. In order to take advantage of the building season, this has been done, and if we get this Vote we shall not lose that part of the building season. Application might have been made to start building in anticipation of Parliamentary consent; but the Votes for these buildings are of such magnitude this year that I could not have adopted that course without making
some application for authority and Parliamentary sanction. Therefore, I have adopted this form of placing the matter before the Committee for acceptance, if the Committee should think fit. I have only occupied five minutes in explanation in the hope that it may simplify the course of the Debate.

Mr. ACLAND: I think the hon. Gentleman has done perfectly right in deciding that these items should be included in these Votes, so as to give the Committee-an opportunity of criticising the proposals, because undoubtedly the proposals for-building, which will be put forward by the Ministry of Health and other Departments will be very important. We art told that the whole building question is a very important one, and, therefore, I think it should be regarded with great care. The hon. Member has stated that by this Supplementary Estimate, he covers the various proposals to be brought forward by the Departments which are-interested, and it will enable them to get on with the building in the early part of the year. But I should like to refer to some of these buildings, particularly those in Manchester. Under Sub-head (F) for new works, alterations, and additions, [...] site is to be purchased at Manchester and a building to be erected at a cost of £132,800; and if we turn to page 12, we will see that it is proposed again in Manchester to purchase a site and erect new buildings for the Divisional Officers of the Employment Exchange. For this there is put down £132,000, which is a provisional sum and may be increased by £32,000. Bringing those two sums together we find that the Government intend for certain buildings to spend a sum of £245,000, which, of course, is only £5,000 short of a quarter of a million. It so happens that there is a very special difficulty in the matter of housing in Manchester at the present time. There is the usual shortage of housing, and there is also a very great shortage of labour. I believe the Manchester City Council has had to give a contract for building houses to an outside contractor—Messrs. MacAlpine. This contractor will have to import labour for the purpose, and that, of course, raises another housing problem, for these
workmen will require to be housed. The matter is one which requires the attention of the House. Has it been talked over with the Minister of Health? The right hon. Gentleman comes to this House and complains, in his opinion quite justifiably, of the action of the trade unions in holding back the building of houses, and of the action of the building ring; and yet all the time it seems to be proposed by the Government that they should engage this year in considerable building works in one of the cities which needs houses more than others. One naturally wants to know why. It seems as if the Government itself would be partly guilty of obstructing those who are anxious to supply the urgent needs of the community in the matter of housing.
Nothing ought to be allowed to stand in the way of housing work. Take the case of my own little village in Devonshire. We want to put up a public hall and institute in celebration of victory, but we are discouraged simply because we feel that at present nothing ought to be done except actual housing work. What is the real justification of this large expenditure on building in Manchester? If it is necessary, the plan has certain obvious consequences: the Government are very definitely aggravating the present shortage both of materials and labour; they are inevitably driving up the price of building materials and increasing the financial difficulty of the local authorities. One would have thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have intervened in a case of this kind and would at any rate have had the matter referred to the Cabinet Committe on Retrenchment, if that body is still in existence. If the Government is really serious in its desire that nothing whatever should stand in the way of its housing programme I want to ask the following questions: What is this considerable expenditure for in Manchester? Is it really necessary now? Has the Minister of Health been consulted as to the effect on the housing programme? Finally, has the matter come before the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Retrenchment Committee, because the sum involved is large and the principle at stake is important?

Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £5.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury deserves our congratulations and thanks for the course he has taken, so that the whole matter may be laid before the House. The sum involved in this Vote is £155,000, to which must be added a further £24,500, or thereabouts, making a total of £182,000; and in the next Vote there is a very large sum, namely £940,000, so that the sum involved is over £1,130,000. That is an enormous expenditure to agree to on token votes. I certainly think the Committee should be very careful indeed as to how they authorise the Government to embark on this very large programme, now that building is so expensive. The item for the purchase of buildings for the Revenue Department at Manchester requires a great deal of explanation.

Sir A. MOND: I can quite understand that my right hon. Friend requires some explanation of the sum of money for which I am asking for the purpose of these Revenue buildings at Manchester. It cannot be overlooked that as building operations stopped practically for five years, there was an enormous congestion to be overcome as far as Government buildings were concerned. That has to be borne in mind in reference to the urgency of making a start now. These particular buildings are asked for by the Inland Revenue. I am asked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been consulted. I have very little doubt he has been consulted, because it is his office that is asking for the buildings, and my right hon. Friend must have been convinced of the necessity for them. It is intended to form six new tax districts in Manchester. There is also a very large increase in the staff in existing districts. It appeared that the most economical solution of the question was to build permanent offices or to buy suitable buildings. It is true that there are difficulties about housing in Manchester. In Manchester, as in other provincial centres in the North, the securing of office accommodation has been a matter of extreme difficulty. It is impossible to stop the machinery of Government and the collection of taxation essential for carrying on Customs and Excise, even if it does interfere with housing for a time. There is the reverse side of the medal to be looked at. If this scheme is carried through one result will be the release of a considerable
number of hired buildings and of a certain amount of office accommodation. The commercial world in Manchester has not enough office accommodation for its needs. If we do not build they will do so. It is not merely a question whether we shall construct houses or these buildings. Hon. Members will agree that, as far as possible, a concentration of staff should be carried out. It is very inconvenient for economical administration to have a staff scattered all over the city. This question has been very fully gone into. The Treasury looked into it very fully themselves, and it is only because of real necessity that they reluctantly put forward this proposal for building.

Captain COOTE: I think it will be agreed that the defence made by the right hon. Gentleman is not very convincing, because if it comes to a choice between Government buildings and the construction of working-class houses or any sort of dwelling-house in the present condition of housing, in my opinion, it is the Government building and not the dwelling-house that ought to go to the wall. The right hon. Gentleman says that if the Government do not build then the commercial interests in Manchester would put up office buildings, and he says that is a reason why the Government should start building their offices and their mansions for the housing of their staff. If the commercial houses in Manchester are in that position they will build anyhow and it will merely increase the difficulty if the Government build as well as the commercial houses.

Sir A. MOND: What I pointed out was that we should release a certain amount of accommodation which would be useful for commercial offices, and that they would use those offices instead of building.

Captain COOTE: I gathered that, but I maintain that it is not an argument that should induce the Committee to agree to estimates of this size, even in the form of token Votes, to say that the Government building will not interfere with the building of workmen's houses. The right hon. Gentleman will not accuse me of exaggerating his statement when I say that he alleged that the machinery of government would break down if these buildings were not constructed. I cannot see how that would come about, because, after all,
the machinery of government is carried on in offices, and the only reason why it should break down is because the people who carried it on were not able to do so any longer, but apparently they have carried it on fairly satisfactorily. I cannot see my way to sanction large Estimates of this kind in the dark until the housing position in the country is far more satisfactory than it is to-day. These buildings examined in relation to the cost of ordinary dwelling-houses seem to be extraordinarily large. Unless there is some further explanation I shall feel compelled to vote for the reduction.

Captain ELLIOT: I desire to support the remarks just made. It is the same old story. The Government come down here and make a fuss about offices, and tell us they are not comfortable, and that they must have better and more and still more offices. But people want to get into houses to live, and the money you will save in erecting these houses will be much more than lost if people are compelled to go on living in slums. We heard hon. Members on the Labour Benches accused some time ago of holding up housing schemes by shortage of labour, and then the Government itself comes down and proposes to subtract these enormous numbers of men and masses of material for their building programme. The Minister of Health complained that, were it not for the shortage of labour and owing to some extent to the shortage of materials, he could get 200,000 houses erected. His confrères come down and say, "We want to get into new and bigger and better offices." It is a tragic thing that the Government is run to such an extent by people who are ignorant of the very rudiments of biology. They do not seem to realise that what is essential is to have houses and married people and children. There are married people being held up who cannot get houses, and you cannot get the citizens who are to be governed from these offices because the Government comes down and wants to spend a hundred and thirteen thousand pounds on some great castle in Manchester. What the people want just now is ordinary four-or five-roomed houses. They want to have a place of their own where they can slam the front door and tell all the Government officials in Christendom to keep outside. The First Commissioner has made no valid defence at all. Marriages are being
prevented because people cannot get anywhere to live. It is hypocrisy to come down and say that the labour situation has anything to do with the building of houses when they propose to let the housing situation in Manchester, which is, I am sure, as bad as elsewhere, stand while they are erecting these great big offices. The only argument advanced was that this building would release offices for commercial purposes. The thing the nation needs is not more commercial premises, but more living room. The people are dying all over the country from overcrowding and congestion. In face of that, the Government calmly propose to subtract large numbers of men and vast masses of material to erect more offices.

Colonel GRETTON: I think this requires further explanation. Is there going to be any economy in administration and in staff in consequence of this proposal? I am greatly disappointed at the explanation which we have had and I think the Government would be better advised to drop this and allow the building trade to apply itself to the building of houses.

Sir A. MOND: I would like to point out that not merely is this building required for the existing staff, but also in connection with additional districts which are being formed. I am informed that a large amount of revenue is being daily lost through these buildings not being erected. It cannot be good economy to refuse accommodation for revenue officers, because if you do not collect revenue you cannot have any housing programme. Hon. Members say they want houses, but in order to have them you must have a supply of money, and to get that you must collect taxes. That is why this scheme has been adopted. We are dealing with a staff of between six and seven hundred people, and although the amount may seem large it is not large worked out per head of the staff as buildings go nowadays. This kind of building does not interfere much with the erection of cottages and dwelling-houses, and there is not the same class of labour employed as you have in the erection of working men's dwellings. I cannot give any undertaking, but what I propose to do is to work as far as possible in conjunction with the Ministry of Health in order to interfere as little as possible with
housing schemes. I gladly undertake to see that as far as possible no housing schemes should be interfered with in any kind of serious way if this scheme is proceeded with.

Captain ELLIOT: Has the right hon. Gentleman been in communication with the Minister of Health?

Sir A. MOND: I propose to put myself in communication with him. I do not suppose the Ministry of Health will make the slightest objection. They will, I am sure, be reasonable enough to see that it is necessary to collect Revenue if we are to have houses. It is not a question of theoretical consultation, but practical coordination that I intend to have. An hon. Member asked if there would be economy of administration. There certainly will be an economy of time in having these offices in one building instead of having them scattered in different places. Another hon. Member said that the people wanted houses and not commercial offices, but I would remind him that unless you develop your export trade and improve the exchange you will not reduce the cost of living. There is no use in saying commercial accommodation does not matter. It is as important to the welfare of the country as dwelling houses. Therefore my argument that by putting up this building you will release a considerable amount of office room which will revert to commercial purposes is, I think, perfectly-sound.

8.0 P.M.

Major BARNES: There are some statements of the right hon. Gentleman which require close consideration. He has told us he has had no consultation with the Ministry of Health on this very important question, and that it was a matter, not of theoretical consultation, but practical co-ordination. He assumes that the Ministry of Health will not object, and he states that they will not. What have the Government done with regard to the local authorities' housing schemes? They have asked every local authority in the country to consider the whole question of building in their area, and not to allow any building to proceed if it is going to interfere with housing. In other words, every local authority has been admonished by the Government to concentrate on the problem of building, and to treat is as a whole, and yet we have the First Commissioner of Works telling us
that the very course which the Government have laid upon the local authorities is one which they are not following themselves. The hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Capt. Elliot) suggested that the Government did not know very much about biology. I think he might add to that that they are rather weak on psychology, too. I think the Government does not quite realise how much the country is looking to it for a lead in the direction of economy and also in the direction of building. During the War we were asked to set aside all other things and concentrate on the prosecution of the War, and I really think that in the country at the present time the feeling of the people is that the prosecution of the great housing scheme is almost as important as was the prosecution of the War, and when the country learns, as it will to-morrow, that the Government is not taking into consideration the housing problem when they are dealing with their own needs, I think it will be felt that they are setting a very bad example to the country indeed.
The right hon. Member who spoke earlier in the Debate (Mr. Acland) mentioned a case of what might be regarded as real village patriotism. He said that down in his part of the world there was a little village anxious to get a hall and institute built, and anyone who knows village life will know how important such a building is to the social life of the village, and yet these people, conscious of the larger problem, have been content to set aside their own wishes and postpone the erection of this centre of pleasure. That is the sort of example that the Government ought to set, and when it begins to set these examples, the country will pull itself together, and we shall get on. There are one or two other matters on this Vote on which I would like to have some explanation. The First Commissioner of Works has made a very serious statement with regard to these buildings which are to be erected in Manchester. He says they are wanted because six new tax districts are being formed, and that the additional staff is required because at the present time the Treasury is losing large amounts of revenue through non-collection. That seems to be a very extraordinary state of affairs, and one that we have never heard anything at all about before in this House. If that is really so it obviously
means that some taxpayers are escaping at the expense of others. This information comes to us from the First Commissioner of Works, and not from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I think we ought to have a little more information upon the matter.
In regard to the actual cost of the work in Manchester, a staff of 600 is going to be accommodated for £113,800. That staff is practically the same in numbers as was the staff of the Peace Conference, and certainly from the point of view of economy the amount that is to be expended in housing 600 officials in Manchester permanently, compares very favourably with the amount that it cost to house a staff of 600 in Paris for two months, namely, £220,000, or about twice as much. I think it would be a great help in considering these votes for public buildings if the Committee could have some information which would enable them to judge whether the amount to be expended was reasonable or not. All these public buildings are being put up in order to accommodate a certain number of staff. Therefore, the real relation to cost and economy would be best realised by the cost per head of the buildings, and if one could have at the same time as the estimates, a statement of the number of staff in each case and the cost per head of housing them at the present time, as compared with earlier votes, the House would be in a better position to judge as to whether economy was or was not being followed. I think the Government should seriously consider this whole building programme in relation to the housing question and give some assurance to the House that the housing problem has been taken into account and that no buildings are being proceeded with which can possibly be dispensed with until at least the first year is over and the first large instalment is made towards the solution of the housing problem.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I really was surprised, pained, and even shocked at the argument of the First Commissioner of Works. If he thinks he is going to collect more revenue by concentrating Inland Revenue officials in a great block of buildings, I am certain that that is a complete and absolute fallacy, and that the only way to collect revenue is to have the officials scattered about the country
and as far as possible working in small offices.
He speaks of the convenience of the public, but surely he knows that the convenience of the public in dealing with the Income Tax collector is better served by having a small office in their own district, instead of a great block of buildings, where you are referred from one man to another, centralised in the heart of a great city, and probably involving a long journey. If under this Vote he is going to concentrate the Inland Revenue officials in Manchester, he is going to make for bureaucracy and not for economy, and by co-ordinating and concentrating things, instead of making for efficiency and the case and comfort of the ordinary man who has got to pay his taxes, he is doing exactly the opposite. I shall undoubtedly vote with my hon. Friend in favour of reducing the amount by £5, and I wish to goodness we could reduce it by more.

Mr. TOOTILL: It strikes me there are one or two things about which hon. Members who sit on these benches will want some information. How many skilled men connected with the building trade are going to be absorbed in the building such as is contemplated by this expenditure? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some information respecting that particular matter. I know great complaints are made in every town and urban district in the country about the delays that are taking place through the red-tape in connection with this housing. Allegations have been made in this House by the Front Ministerial Bench that the Labour party are responsible for the holding-up of the building of houses for the people. I want to give a definite and categorical denial to any such allegation. Until the Government have presented the facts and given us the data upon which those facts are built, then, as one representing a great industrial constituency, and with some knowledge of the housing problem as it affects that district, I say it is not fair or just, and the Government must take their full share of the responsibility for this great delay in the building of houses. What took place during the War? In Barrow, which was a district where munitions were made upon a large scale, three sets of men were occupying beds at given periods in three shifts, and surely the
Government must realise that that is conducive to ill-health and not efficiency. It is now proposed to spend this large sum on a central building, when greater efficiency might be secured in the collection of revenue by having the offices scattered. Until the Government have demonstrated clearly, definitely and unmistakably that the Labour party are responsible for the holding up of house building throughout the country, I think we are justified in absolutely denying the statement that we are responsible. I, therefore, feel that it is in the interests of the country that this question should be dealt with on its merits.

Motion made and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again" put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Baldwin.]

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow -, Committee also report progress; to sit again To-morrow.

RAILWAY SUPERANNUATION FUNDS.

Major BARNETT: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the statutory pensions of superannuated railway servants retired before or during the Government control of the railways should be increased to such an extent as will meet the increased cost of living.
I think that I cannot do better in bringing this matter before the House than state exactly what the railway superannuation funds are. There are fifteen statutory railway funds altogether, to which there are 108,000 contributing members and 6,700 superannuated members. The accumulated funds amount in round figures to £12,000,000. The average pension is not a high one. For the whole of those funds the average pension is only £90 a year. In the case of some funds it is as little as £57 or £65 a year. Incidentally I must say that, while the great bulk of these superannuated men are exempt from Income Tax, that tax is assessed on the highest annuity, and no less than £115,000 has been paid in the last five years on these funds. I am only mentioning that as one of the things that reduce the amount at the disposal of the funds. It is almost impossible to exaggerate the benefit which the community as a whole has derived from the existence of these funds. Take
the National Insurance Act. I need not say that contributors are excepted from national insurance, and in the seven years since the Act came into force the Treasury has saved £455,000 through the superannuation funds, and it is saving now at the rate of £68,000 a year. Moreover, during the past; five years, while the railways have been under Government control, the employers contribution which would have come out of State moneys has also been saved. Then there is the old age pension. Most of these people, in point of fact, would have been able to obtain the old age pension. The average age of the members is over seventy, and it is only at sixty-five they begin to draw superannuation. It is estimated that £464,000 has been saved to the State through these superannuation funds, and it was calculated six months ago that that was increasing at the rate of £64,000 a year. But of course, with the recent necessary increase of the old age pension, that will be greater still. Of these fifteen funds, eleven are funds, the money of which is invested with the railway companies. I will give those companies.
They are the North Western, the Mid land, the Great Central, the Great Northern (partly), the South Western, the Brighton, the North Eastern, the Lancashire and Yorkshire, the Caledonian, the North British, and the Glasgow and South Western. In the case of these 11 companies the money has been left in the business. What does that mean? Before the War it meant a snug investment of 4 per cent. The railway companies wanted to treat their superannuated servants on the most-favoured-nation terms, and at the time when they were only giving 2½ per cent. to their debenture-holders they gave 4 per cent. to the Railway Superannuation Funds. Four per cent. from the Midland or the North Western Railway before the War was something to make one's mouth water. There came a change, the War intervened. The State took over the control of the railways. The value of money went up by leaps and bounds. The Government, with the finest security in the world, began to borrow at 4 per cent., 5 per cent., 5½ per cent., and 5¾ per cent. These funds only carried interest at the rate of 4 per cent. That applies to £8,000,000 out of the £12,000,000. So far as the other £4,000,000 are concerned,
with the. Great Western, the Great Eastern, the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Co. and the Railway Clearing House funds, there is no question about these, because they were invested in general securities. If these securities went down those concerned shared the fate of the rest of us. But there is a special point that I shall submit to the House as regards the £8,000,000 actually loaned to the railway companies, because that has been receiving through the War period a rate of interest not at all commensurate with the value of money, £600,000 having really been under-paid on that £8,000,000.
Who is it that participates in the benefits of these funds? I can summarise it by saying that for the most part it is the salaried staffs and the supervisory staffs. In other words, the great bulk of the annuitants are stationmasters, clerks, and inspectors. In the case of the companies a few other grades of the service contribute to the fund and participate in its benefits. In the case of the London, Brighton and South Coast, for example, drivers, guards, signalmen, and ticket-collectors all contribute to the fund and participate in its benefits. Apart, however, from exceptional instances like that of the Brighton Company, with the majority of the companies it is the salaried staffs, the stationmasters, clerks and supervisory-staffs who contribute to and benefit from the funds. Many of these men have begun on the lowest rung of the ladder. A man may have started as a railway porter, then have become a goods guard, then a passenger guard, then an inspector—when for the first time he becomes a contributor to the fund—eventually he reaches the summit of his ambition, a stationmastership. In some cases—and the facts are within the knowledge of many hon. Members of this House—the man had a little wayside station, a house and coal, and may be 30s. a week, and there was no large margin for saving. Indeed, there was no need for saving, because the man was assured of a happy and comfortable old age from his pension—not a big one, certainly, but something that he could live upon quietly in a country place in pre-war time, say, £90 a year.
It is for these veterans of the railway industry that I want to appeal to the House this evening. They are men to
whom the country, not only the railways, but the country, owe the greatest possible debt. They have risen through their own care, ability, and loyal attention to their duties to an honourable position, and have retired on something which they expected would give them subsistence in the evening of their days. They find, through no fault of their own, that they are beggared and dependent on the charity of their friends when they ought to be having an independent old age. Possibly I shall be asked from what fund do I suggest that these inadequate pensions shall be augmented? I am asking the House to declare that it is desirable that the pensions of these people should be increased to such an extent as will meet the increased cost of living. Some doubt may be raised as to the quarter from which that money should come. I myself have a very shrewd idea that the State which has controlled the railways since August 12th, 1914, and has, in the words of the Scottish proverb, had the opportunity "of making a kirk or a mill of it," and has perhaps made a mull of it, that the State, which has had the railways in its hands and prevented the companies from being master in their own house, should foot this Bill. Of one thing I feel certain that whether it is the State or the railway should foot the Bill, someone has got to foot it! I shall, I hope, be able to make out to the satisfaction of the House that this is a debt that has to be paid either by the State or by the railway companies, or by the two together, and the sooner the Minister of Transport and the railway companies put their heads together and decide exactly the proportions in which this necessary money shall be forthcoming, the better it will be for the credit of the House of Commons and the nation.
In the first years of the War—we know from the White Paper, Command Paper 147—and in fact right down to the Armistice very considerable profits were made by the railways companies. The White Paper shows that the War profits on the working of the railways from August, 1914, to December, 1918, were at least £17,000,000, plus an unascertainable sum which is estimated from £10,000,000 to £15,000,000 made from the steamboats, and so on. The total is something between £27,000,000 and £32,000,000. The Minister of Transport has come down
here since and has said he had a debit balance estimated at £100,000,000. That figure has been whittled down since. I never believed it. I do not believe it now. But if it were true it does not affect my argument one whit. If the State took the railways in hand to control them, and thought fit to raise the wages, as it did raise them, let the State pay for it manfully, and not the railway companies who had no part nor lot in much of what was done. What attitude do the present staffs of the railways take in regard to this question of superannuation? They take the most sympatheic attitude. In the case of three of the companies, the North Western, the Midland, and the North Eastern, the men have put up something out of their wages—3d. per week, a sort of levy—on condition that the company find a similar amount, and this goes to relieve the necessities of members of the superannuated staffs. That is very creditable indeed to the working staff, but it ought not to be necessary, although a gift like that from their friends or successors is something they receive more cheerfully than from outside. It is, however, putting a stigma on the men which they do not deserve. The Great Western Railway, the Great Central Railway, and the South Western Railway are making similar arrangements at the present time. The Railway Clearing House, a great institution with 60 railway companies included in its membership, has not waited for the Government to deal with this matter. It has taken its courage in both hands and made a grant to these necessitous people. I have received letters from many of these old people of a most heart-rending description, and some of them are reduced to the greatest penury and almost to despair. I am aware that we shall probably be accused of making a raid on the Treasury. I can well remember my first days in Parliament, when I was a very young, and I hope a very innocent M.P. At that time I went on a deputation to the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. MacKinnon Wood) to ask that the old age pensions, which were then only 5s., should be increased. There were Members of all parties on that deputation. Mr. MacKinnon Wood received us very courteously, heard all our arguments, and then said to us:
I am glad nobody has alluded to the fact that we are spending £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 a day on the War.
Of course it is the spendthrift's argument that because you are spending much in one direction you can afford to spend more in another, but the fact that we could spend £7,000,000 a day on a just war gives us some sort of criterion as to what we could do with a perfectly just claim such as this. We were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day that a sum of £50,000,000 would be required to deal with all these questions of pensions. He said:
I have taken the trouble to see what would be the immediate result of our action in regard to this Resolution. It would add to our liabilities the capital sum of certainly not less than £50,000,000. It would add an immediate annual charge and if you calculate the capital it would not be less than I have stated, and this includes nothing for the railways.
Those figures may be open to criticism, but I accept them as they were accepted by the Home Secretary. No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer will assume an adamantine attitude towards any proposals which will tax the public purse. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman regards those who bring forward proposals of this kind as light-hearted revellers, who are indulging in the rollicking chorus
Another little million wont do us any harm.
I can assure the House that those who are bringing forward this Motion to-night do not approach this problem in any frivolous spirit of that kind. We realise the necessity for economy, but admitting that we must be just before we are generous, let us at any rate make sure that we are just. 1s it just to concede, as we have done, every demand of the actual working staff of the railways, and then refuse to make any concession to the superannuated men? I say fearlessly, that it is a very cynical argument in favour of the right to strike that the men who have the power to strike get every penny of their demand, and the men who have not are left to starve. I cannot believe that that is justice, or that it is anything that this nation has a right to be proud of.
I have said already that this money, which is absolutely needed to augment the small pensions, must come either from the State or the railways or from the two together, and this Debate may show us which is the proper quarter. I understand it will be urged from the Treasury
Bench that the State has no part or lot in these matters, that the railway servants are not public servants, and that this House need not interest itself in their superannuation. It is perfectly true that the man who comes into the vineyard at the last hour generally demands his penny, and my experience leads me to believe that he generally wants the vine-yard as well. It is perfectly true that the men I am pleading for have got what they bargained for originally. They bargained for such and such a contribution, and an annual sum which allowed them comfort and a subsistence in a quiet way, but I think it is up to us to see that these men at the end of their days are not allowed to starve.

Sir WATSON RUTHERFORD: I beg to second the Motion. After the eloquent and convincing manner in which this Motion has been proposed, I shall detain the House for a very few moments. The House is aware that at the present time the superannuated staffs of the railways number about 6,700 men. Of these 2,300 receive less than £l a week and 5,200 out of the 6,700 receive less than £2 a week. There are only 4 per cent. of the whole superannuated staff who receive over £200 a year pension, and therefore the Motion we are making to-night may be taken to refer to 96 per cent. of the superannuated men, of whom about one-half are receiving a pension of less than £l a week. The question naturally arises how can these people manage to subsist at all upon such an amount? I know the case of one man. I give it as an illustration, but I do not wish to harrow the feelings of the House. That man is 72 years of age. He has a wife who is an invalid, his pension is 16s. 2d. a week, and he does not happen to be fortunate enough to have served in one of those companies where the staffs have come forward and made a weekly whip as they are so generously doing in the case of several railways. That man would have to go into the workhouse with his wife were it not for the fact that there is a small penny collection made in a hat every Saturday afternoon along the railway platform in order to enable him to buy a bit of bread. The facts have been well laid before the House. We have here a case that ought to be inquired into. Something ought to be done. This is a class of man which cannot strike, and therefore at the present
moment they are left high and dry. They are left to starve.
But I venture to suggest that if it is at any time a right and proper thing to increase the wages of the working staff, it surely is only just and fair that some small proportion of that increase should be given to the superannuated veterans who have done their life's work in the interests not merely of the railway companies, but of the general public who are represented by the Members of this House. I will not go over the same ground as the mover of the Resolution. But may I remind the House that there are four very large sums of money which have gone in some direction, and either the State or the railway companies have had the benefit of them in connection with these superannuation funds. These four different categories are, first, £400,000, the difference in the rate of interest that ought to have been paid by somebody to the benefit of these funds. The railway companies during the whole time have had the control of, and been responsible for the receipts and payments and for the dividends arising from £8,000,000 at 4 per cent. Four hundred thousand pounds, therefore, would be a proper rate of increase owing to the Superannuation Fund by someone. In the next place, £115,000 Income Tax has been charged against these funds during the last six years—

Sir F. BANBURY: No, that has not been done.

Sir W. RUTHERFORD: It is perfectly ridiculous to charge Income Tax in that way. According to the figures I have here, £115,000 has been so charged in six years. Some has been refunded, but nothing like a half of it. In the next place, £900,000 has been saved by the National Health Insurance by the very fact that that fund has been relieved of providing for all these superannuated men who contracted out, and it has had the effect of saving £900,000. In connection with Old Age Pensions also a sum of £464,000 has been saved to the State. These sums of money, excluding the amount recovered from Income Tax, come to very nearly £2,000,000, and either the State or the railway companies have had the advantage of that money. It would be
perfectly futile for anyone on the Treasury Bench to deny that something ought now to be done for these unfortunate people who have been left in the lurch. What is the position? This difficulty arose exactly at the time when the Government was in control and possession of the railways, and my contention is that it ought at that time to have been fairly faced. It was perfectly clear that this difficulty did exist, and it was the duty of those who took over charge of the railways to see that something was done to meet it. An association was formed amongst these superannuated men, and it went individually and collectively to the railway companies. The companies almost unanimously expressed deep sympathy with the men, but pointed out that, as the Government was in control, they could do nothing. Then the Federation went to the Railway Executive, which also received them with deep sympathy, and referred them to the Board of Trade. At the Board of Trade, they got more sympathy, but they were told that there were frequent changes at the head of the Department, and, as the present head of the Department had only been in office three weeks, and his predecessor had not dealt with the question, he would go into the matter when he had time. Then they were referred to the Treasury, where still more sympathy was forthcoming. Each of these people referred the representatives of these unfortunate men from one Department to another—heaps of sympathy on every occasion, and nothing done. That is the position, and this matter is going on now, and while we are debating this Motion a number of these unfortunate people are absolutely on the verge of starvation, and I claim that something should be done at once. They eventually got to the Prime Minister, and they got a letter from his private secretary with more sympathy, but the Prime Minister was, of course, too busy dealing with Turks and Jugo-Slavs and other people of that description, and in the meantime these people are starving.
9.0 P.M.
With this unlimited sympathy there is no redress, and we have been driven to bring forward this Motion in the hope that it will receive something more than sympathy from the the Ministry of Transport. It is time this subject ceased to be dealt with as a football tossed from the Board
of Trade to the Ministry of Transport, from the Ministry of Transport to the Railway Executive, and so on. We want it settled in some shape or another, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Neal), if he is in a position to deal with the matter at all, should tell us what the Government are prepared to do as a Government, and I think he might say the Government is now prepared to leave the railway companies to deal with the matter in their own way, because I am authorised to say that these men believe that the different railway companies would treat them in a fair and generous manner if they were only allowed by the Government to do so. That question of what the Government does or does not allow the railway companies to do is an exceedingly difficult one. We do not know the terms of the agreement between the Government and the railway companies. What is it? We understood they were allowed to spend all their ordinary working expenses. One of the railway companies the other day gave a gentleman £50,000. Was that a working expense? I do not know whether the Government assented to that. I do not wish to make any observation about it. I daresay it was right and proper to pay it, but if a railway company can pay that without it being reasonably objected to, surely the Government ought not to raise a finger of objection to the railway companies giving a few pounds to the necessitous cases amongst the veterans of the staff to whom they and the public owe so much.

Mr. TURTON: I am the Chairman of the Railway Clearing House. We have not only a Superannuation Fund for our own staff, but in addition we have, as parties to that fund, no fewer than seventy-two other railways and joint committees of railways. We have therefore a very large number of annuitants and we pay away something like £60,000 a year in annuities. Therefore, I can claim that on the Clearing House Superannuation Committee we have not to learn a great deal about this matter that we are debating. There was brought to our notice some two years ago the very terrible plight to which many of these annuitants were reduced, through no fault of their own, by reason of the very small annuities they were in receipt of. We felt we were bound to take action. We accordingly asked the delegates who
represent the Railway Clearing House to place a considerable sum of money at our disposal in order that we might make compassionate grants in all these cases of necessity. The state of a large number of the annuitants was piteous. I was thankful that we were able to grant them some alleviation and to permit them to obtain the necessaries of life. That compassionate grant continued for two years. I am extremely sorry, when dealing with men who have done such splendid service in the railway world, to use such an expression as "compassionate grant," but that is the only term which, under the circumstances, we are permitted. We hope and trust that we shall have thrown sufficient light on this matter, that there will be no question of a compassionate grant, but that the Government will consider the matter and recognise the justice of these men's claims and give us authority on the different railways to deal with it in a just, fair and reasonable manner. East week the House was considering the question of pensions to the police. We have a far stronger case that we are debating to-night than that of the police pensioners. A policeman after twenty-six years of service, in the prime of life, in the forties—I only wish I could be in the same position—is able to take up practically any other employment, and other kinds of life are open to him. I have recommended policemen for various posts in Yorkshire. One is a county court bailiff, another is a keeper in a good position, another looks after a factory. Their life is not finished. Their work is not done. They have their own opportunities of continuing to earn money. That is not the case with the railway men. You have practically worked them to death, because the men who are in receipt of these pensions did not work under present-day conditions. There was no question of overtime; there was no discussion as to short hours. They served the different railway companies loyally and well, and that is why we feel it is such a hardship that they should be left in the lurch in the way we suggest they are being left by the Government to-day.
We had, on the occasion of the police question, a soulless lawyer in the person of the Home Secretary to deal with this matter, and what did we get from him in regard to that? That he had explored
every avenue of economy. I suppose the Home Secretary in his voyage of exploration had been using the policeman's dark lantern, and the shutter got jammed and he has not been able to show any light upon what he was exploring. It is absurd for him to tell us that every avenue of economy must be explored. Let them go to the War Office. Let them go and see the numberless cases of officers going about with petrol, officers using our trains and filling them up. Only the other day as I was going North there was an officer in the train from York and he boasted that he was able to spend every week-end in the South at what he called His Majesty's expense. His Majesty's expense meant the taxpayers of this country, who have to make up the railway deficit. This question of economy in the mouth of the Home Secretary is nothing less than idle eye-wash. I trust that the Minister who gives the reply to-night will not use any such futile arguments as those which the Home Secretary used last week. There may be a necessity for economy in the Ministry of Transport. I noticed only yesterday that a journal to which we pay much attention is taking up the question of the staffing in the Ministry of Transport offices, and has suggested that when the Minister of Transport returns they would tackle him on the question of the staff in his office, which they suggest should be 718. The Ministry of Transport not only use the staff in their own office, but they come to us in the Railway Clearing House and we have to provide them with numberless staff. We have to call back clerks from other vocations in order to obtain the statistics which the Minister of Transport declares are necessary for him. I hope that in the Minister who is about to reply we shall have one who is, at any rate, sympathetic towards our proposals. It was not very long ago that the hon. Member for the Hillsborough Division of Sheffield (Mr. Neal), who is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, was good enough to come to the Caxton Hall, where we had a large meeting to discuss this question, and amongst the sympathetic speeches from that platform there was no speech more sympathetic in every detail than that addressed by the hon. Gentleman to that large audience of pensioners. This is
what he said at that meeting on the 4th November:
They had had up to the present nothing but excuses, and that was not what they wanted.
I tell my hon. Friend to-night, when he speaks on behalf of the Government, that we do not want excuses. It will not come very well from him if he attempts to give us any excuses. He went on to say:
The Government should set an example of high rectitude in such matters.
We want the Government to set an example of high rectitude in the matter. He finished up with the great peroration:
The superannuated staff should have justice done to them in their old age.
That is exactly what we are asking the House to agree to to-night. He also said something about pensions being in the nature of deferred pay. Throughout the whole of that evening my hon. Friend's speech thrilled us. "No excuses, high moral rectitude, and justice to be done to the old age pensioners." Will my hon. Friend endorse to-night from that box what he told us in the Caxton Hall on the 4th November? I regret very much that the Minister of Transport cannot be with us to-night, because if he had been here we should have claimed him as an advocate on our side. In my connection with the right hon. Gentleman on the North-Eastern Railway, I always noticed that he said that everybody who worked with him or under him, including himself, should be fairly and justly remunerated. My hon. Friend (Sir Watson Rutherford) must not take it that I agree with him on another matter to which he referred, which has passed over and is done with. The Minister of Transport during the War was practically in the same position as a superannuated railwayman, because he was lent by the railway to the Government. During the time that he was at the Admiralty he could have been in receipt of a salary of £4,500 a year and an official residence; but my right hon. Friend would have none of the pittance which you offer to the First Lord of the Admiralty. We continued to pay him £8,000 a year, £2,000 a year pocket money, free of income tax, and £1,000 a year to pay for a house. If it was right—and it was right under the circumstances—that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport, when he was a superannuated
member of the North-Eastern Railway staff, should have been in receipt of £11,000 a year, £3,000 of which was fret from income tax and super-tax, surely we can claim that he will give a measure of justice to these poor annuitants who are so sadly in want at the present time. Therefore, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will represent to his Chief that the time has come when these annuitants should be treated liberally.
The right hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), in the Debate last week followed a course with which we used to be familiar in the days of Labouchere and went to the Bible for a quotation, which was not quite correct. Last Sunday morning, when I was reading the lessons in Church, I read this verse:
Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you do ye also unto them.
That is what we recommend the Minister to do, and that when he is dealing with these people who are so sadly in want of assistance he should do to them as he would they should do to himself. We are not going to suggest what the Minister should do, but we do want a sympathetic reply, and we want no more put-offs. There has been a very splendid movement on a part of the salaried staffs in many of the railways and in the railway clearing house. Members of the salaried staffs have denied themselves in order that they might assist their suffering brothers who have been in the service, and we on the North Eastern Railway and in the clearing house agreed to give pound for pound for every sovereign subscribed by the men in this way. I commend that to the Parliamentary Secretary. Many railways have adopted this scheme, but there are, unfortunately, other railways that are laggards. Under the Ministry of Transport Act the Minister can give orders to the directors of railways to carry out certain things, and I suggest that the right thing would be to issue directions to the chairman of the Great Northern Railway Company, that his railway should give pound for pound for pound for every single sovereign subscribed amongst the men for helping the annuitants. We hope for more assistance. We want a statement from the Minister and an assurance that whatever we give by way of additions to these
pensioners shall be allowed below the line and not put above the line. If it is to be taken as working expenses, then you may take it that the railway companies can be trusted to do justice to those whose cases are indeed hard, and who, I think, we shall decide practically with unanimity are bound to be helped under their present circumstances.

Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend who has just sat down has told us how very generous the North-Eastern Railway has been. I am sorry that I did not have the honour of serving with the North-Eastern Railway and of receiving £11,000 per year—£3,000 free of Income Tax—not for doing any work for the North-Eastern Railway, but for doing work for somebody else. I do not know what the Minister of Transport will say when he comes to read this Debate, but that is a matter which concerns my hon. Friend and the Minister of Transport. My hon. Friend also made a great attack upon the Home Secretary. I was present during the whole of that Debate, and I must say that I think the Home Secretary showed a great amount of courage under very difficult circumstances. My hon. Friend referred to him as a soulless lawyer; I should have said that he was a statesman guided by honest motives. My hon. Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Liverpool (Sir W. Rutherford) has made some very wild statements. I endeavoured to put him right in order to save a little time, but he was so impetuous that he would not listen to me. He went on to talk all sorts of fables about various sums and about various supposititious incomes in circumstances which have never existed. He said that the railway companies were taking the money of the Superannuation Funds at 4 per cent. and deducting the Income Tax from it.

Sir W. RUTHERFORD: I did not say anything of the sort.

Sir F. BANBURY: He afterwards qualified it by saying that some part of the Income Tax had been returned. What are the facts with regard to the railway of which I have the honour to be chairman? My own railway up to the year 1917 paid on a certain portion of the Superannuation Fund 4 per cent., and it paid the Income Tax during the whole of that time out of its own pocket.
Therefore, there was no question of any appropriation of any Income Tax. The Superannuation Fund had 4 per cent. free of Income Tax. Then in 1917 our accountant found that the Income Tax Commissioners would be willing not to make any charge for Income Tax on the income of the Superannuation Fund, because it was more or less in the nature of a charity. As soon as I knew that I went to the Superannuation Committee and said that the position was changed, that there was now no necessity to pay the Income Tax, and that I should propose at once that We should give 5 per cent. on the money of the Superannuation Fund. That was in 1917. Naturally, the members of the Superannuation Fund at once acceded to my request, and we have since then given 5 per cent. on the Superannuation Fund.

Sir W. RUTHERFORD: Hear, hear

Sir F. BANBURY: It was a mere act of justice. There is an idea that there are companies which have not given more than 4 per cent. I may say that I happened to be speaking to the chairman of another company, one of the largest, and he told me that he has given 4½ per cent. for some considerable time. There is, however, an idea that the money might have been invested at a higher rate of interest. Any sum that could have been obtained in that way would not belong to the people who have been superannuated, but would belong to the Fund. Perhaps it is news to my hon. Friend, and possibly to the House, that all the superannuation funds of the railway companies are at the present time insolvent.

Sir W. RUTHERFORD: Actuarily?

Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, actuarily. Therefore, that money could not have been spent on giving increased benefits to the members, but must have gone towards making the funds more or less solvent. When, in 1917, I proposed to give 5 per cent. from the Superannuation Fund of the Great Northern Railway, I said that I did not see that the Company could use more than £500,000, and that we must limit the money we could take to that sum. That left a considerable sum to be invested, and £500,000 was invested in War Loan. It was purchased at just under 95, and to-day the Loan stands at 87¼. If you take 87¼ from 95, you will find that
there has been a loss of 7¾ per cent. in two years, which, on £500,000, is very nearly £40,000. In my case they got no more interest, but even where they were not getting 5 per cent. and where they would have got a little more interest it would have been more than swallowed up by the depreciation which would have resulted from any such investment. It must not be supposed that railway companies are either soulless beings or people who have no business instincts. In the case of the Great Northern Railway, 4 per cent. was allowed from 1875 to 1917, when I rose it to 5 per cent. What was the rate of interest during the nineties? The rate of interest on investments varied from 2½ to 3 per cent. Therefore, the annuitants were benefiting by something like 1 per cent. That is not all. Their funds remained intact. Had they been invested at 2½ and 3 per cent. at that time, they would have lost half the money by now. Where a million pounds would have been invested, at the present time it would not be worth more than £500,000. Therefore, the system which has been attacked by the superannuated servants, instead of acting harshly upon the Superannuation Fund, has acted extremely well.

Sir W. RUTHERFORD: Hear, hear.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know whether the House understands what are these Superannuation Funds, or how they have arisen. I believe it is the same in every company. The servants contribute so much, and the railway companies contribute an equal amount. In January, 1906, we found that the Superannuation Fund of the Great Northern Railway was insolvent. At that time I was not Chairman of the Company, but I was Chairman of the Superannuation Fund, and I took very considerable interest in it. I said: "We have not actually compelled oar employés to join the fund, but to all intents and purposes we have done so, and we have the management of the fund in our own hands. Therefore, they have a right to expect that the benefits which they understood that they were going to get when they joined the fund shall be assured them. The Fund is insolvent, and we cannot go on paying these benefits. Those people who were members of the Fund before 1906, must have their benefits secured to them and they must come out of the pockets of the shareholders." There was a considerable discussion but
eventually it was put to the shareholders and they agreed, and we paid a sum—in these days when we spend millions a few thousand pounds do not seem to matter, but in 1906 they were of some importance, as they are now—of £15,000 in 1907 out of the profits of the shareholders in order to secure to those people who had joined the Fund before 1906 those benefits which they thought they were going to get.
In 1906 we reduced benefits slightly in order to make the Fund solvent for the new entrants. In 1909 the Fund was again found to be actuarially insolvent, and the Company paid another £5,000 so as to preserve to the second class the benefits which they thought they were going to get. In 1914 the same thing Occurred again, and the Company paid another £5,000, and at the present moment the Company are paying £31,566. One-half per cent. on the deferred stock is £40,000, so that we are paying very nearly one-half per cent. in addition to the additional amount we agreed to pay, namely, the same contributions as those of the service. In the year 1919 the contributions of the employés were £28,030, and the Company contributed £60,000 instead of the £28,000, which is all that they were bound to contribute. We have endeavoured to do our duty impartially, because we had a duty to the shareholders as well as to the employés. In 1903 the actuarial deficiency was £560,920. In 1908 it was £164,791. That includes the Company's subsidy of £15,000. In 1913 it was £160,302, including the Company's contribution of £31,000. I am only talking about my own Company, because it is the only company of which I can give full figures which I know to be accurate. Roughly speaking, there are rather over 30,000 shareholders and rather over 30,000 employés. The employés have had a very large rise in wages and salary. I do not know whether the House quite realises what that amount has been. In this year we estimate that we shall pay in wages and salaries alone a sum of £7,000,000. That is more than the total gross income received from all sources by the Company in 1914. In that year the total gross income of the Company was about £6,000,000. The shareholders are receiving a less dividend than they did in 1914.

Mr. W. CARTER: There was a starvation wage in 1914.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am not talking about wages, but shareholders. I rather agree with the hon. Member that it was a starvation dividend, and I hope that he will put his hand in his pocket when he travels on a railway and pay rather a higher fare and will support higher rates in this House when the question of rates arises. Let him show his generosity out of his own pocket. The shareholders, who are as large a number as the employees and are receiving less than they did in 1914, are not rich people. I do not know what the average is, but my belief is that the average holding is only about £600 or £700, and I note that a large number of the shareholders have nothing else or very little else to depend upon for their living. That is the position as regards the Great Northern Railway Company, but I believe that it is more or less, the position as regards other railway companies. I quite agree that it is desirable that all people should be better off than they are, and that it would be well if they would increase the fees paid to the Chairman of the Great Northern Railway Company, though I have not found anybody who is prepared to do that. It is most desirable to increase everybody's income. I daresay that a good many people in this House would like to get more than £400 a year, but you cannot always do what you like. You cannot always make this a perfect world. Notwithstanding what the Prime Minister has said about making a new world I myself do not see the new world coming. But consider the position. These people pay a certain sum of money down in order to get another sum. The Company out of their own pockets have paid far more than there was any obligation on them to pay in order that the particular sums which the employees thought they were going to get should be given to them. How can anyone come forward and say that these people have the right to receive more than they paid for without paying any more themselves because of certain things that have occurred?
I will take a further instance. Who can tell what the cost of living really is? The calculations vary very much. Have these funds to be re-valued every time the Board of Trade sends out a different figure? Then, I ask, who is going to pay? I am certain it cannot come out of the pockets of the shareholders. Has it to come out of the public, out of the
Treasury—the State? We are all the State. Everybody, here and outside, constitutes the State, and it would have to come out of our pockets. As I said in the case of the police pensions, all this may be very good, but you must draw the line. Personally, in this case I have no objection to the Government coming forward, but I am not so sure about the view of the taxpayer. Is the Government to come forward and break this bargain? It is not an ordinary bargain in which a certain sum has been paid, but they come to us and say, "You have to pay this out of your pocket." We cannot go on with that. The pocket of the taxpayers will be empty some day, and then you can get nothing. That is really what hon. Members have to think about. I am quite certain it is impossible for the railway companies to do anything more than they have done. I have endeavoured to put the case as I know it. I believe my statement is correct. I have taken considerable trouble to get the figures. I have given the case of one individual company because I happen to have the means of ascertaining the facts, and I believe also that I am correct in saying that, although there are variations in the administration of the funds of the different companies, speaking generally, the illustration I have given is applicable to all.

Major MALONE: I am sure the sympathy of the House will go forth to this deserving class of people, who have worked for so many years on low salaries in the expectation held out to them. The inducement offered to them at that time to continue work at low salaries was that they would get superannuation allowance in their old age. This is a contributory scheme, as stated by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). The men contributed a portion and the railway companies also contributed. There is no charge being made against the conduct of the railway companies with respect to these superannuation funds. They have dealt very generously with the staffs, and it remains now for the Government to step in. The period of service of these men is between 40 and 50 years, and the mode of calculation is not the same as that of the Treasury. In the last year of service they would have considerable salaries at the Treasury. It is calculated for the whole
period of their service in this case, and consequently their superannuation allowance is a very small one. The effect of this will be seen by the fact that 23 per cent. of the members are receiving from £30 to £50 a year; 29 per cent. £50 to £75; 19 per cent. £75 to £100; 10 per cent. £100 to £150; 3 per cent. £150 to £200; and 4 per cent. above £200. The other 12 per cent. have under £30 per annum. This will show to the House the state that these men must be in who have to depend upon the small grants. The contribution of the railway funds has been raised to something like £12,000,000, and of this £8,000,000 are in the hands of the railway companies since August, 1914, and have been available for railway purposes. Taking the present rate of interest at 5¾ per cent., that represents £140,000 per year. During the War, with all respect to what the right hon. Baronet has said, £115,000 has been charged for Income Tax, although I believe Parliament decided years ago that such funds should be exempted.
Then take the saving to the State. In the case of National Insurance the members of the funds were exempted. That is a saving to the Treasury during the seven years of some £455,000, and now the annual rate of £68,000 accrues under that head. As certain benefits have increased it will be seen that in the future a very considerable saving will be accruing to the Government under this head. Take Old Age Pensions. These funds have kept members from qualifying for Old Age Pensions which would otherwise have cost the State a considerable amount of money. Since the passing of the Act £464,000, at least, has been saved by the Treasury on Old Age Pensions, and with the present increase in the pension it will amount to something like £85,000 a year. Therefore, taking Income Tax at £115,000, the saving on National Insurance at £910,000, and the saving on Old Age Pensions at £464,000, we get a total of £1,489,000 which has been saved to the Treasury in the last few years owing to the existence of those funds. The average retiring age of these people is 65 years; the average age of those at present receiving superannuation allowance is 70 years, and the average life of men receiving superannuation is 7 years. I want to point out the unfairness of the present position. Members pensioned since 1915 who were receiving War bonus
granted by the Government did not on their retirement receive one penny in respect of that War bonus. That is an entirely different principle from that adopted by the Civil Service. I suggest this should be taken into consideration. The Government should allow two-thirds of the War bonus, or in some cases it might even be one-half, to relieve these people from the anxiety they are in at the present time. I um sure that this House would not grudge that to men who have done so well for their country, men to whom the Prime Minister referred with gratitude for their services during the War.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Let me recite what appear to be the undisputed facts of the case. So far no one has got up to suggest that there are not amongst these railway pensioners many absolutely pitiful cases of people who are on the verge of starvation and who really have not money enough to keep body and soul together. That is a fact. I do not think it has been suggested to the House that such cases ought not to be dealt with by someone. It has been suggested that on the one hand the State, and on the other hand that the railway companies, ought to deal with them. That they ought to be dealt with in common humanity and decency, I believe every hon. Member is prepared to affirm. If that be so, the only question is, where is the money to come from? I admit that it is a serious question. I say that, at any rate in necessitous cases, which I believe comprises the great majority, money must be found. I do not know what the representative of the Treasury is going to say. I hope he is not going to say that it is no business of the State; that the State can see men dying by the wayside, and pass them by like the person described in the Scriptures, and can say, "This is no affair of mine." I do not think he will adopt quite that attitude. If he does, I am confident it will not commend itself to the vast majority of the Members of the House. If I am asked, "How is the State to pay; is there any reason why the State should pay, or any funds out of which they could pay?" I will answer by asking, first, about the Income Tax.
It has been asserted by more than one speaker that the Chancellor of the Exchequer exacts income tax at the rate of 6s. in the £l from the income of these
investments. Is that so? If the State does take that income tax it ought to return it. What conceivable reason is there why it should take 6s. in the £l out of the income, the whole of which should go to poor men? You have a fund, say, of £10,000, divided among a very large number of poor people who by law are free from income tax, and yet the State, it is alleged, takes 6s. in the £1. If that is what is done I respectfully suggest to the Government—I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer were here—it should be altered at once. On the figures quoted that change would supply about £115,000 a year, and that amount would go some way towards meeting cases of dire distress. Then we have been told that there is a sum of £8,000,000 (which represents the accumulated contributions partly of the railway companies and partly of the railway servants) which before the War was in the hands of the railway companies and carrying 4 per cent. interest. Since the State took control I understand that that £8,000,000 is in the hands of the State, and the State has had the benefit of that £8,000,000. The State since it has had that money has been getting it at 4 per cent. Is there any conceivable reason why the State should pay no more than 4 per cent.? They have had to raise money at 5 per cent. and 5¾ per cent. and on Exchequer Bonds at 6 per cent. and 6½ per cent. The Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said there was a bargain that there should be only 4 per cent. paid on this £8,000,000. There certainly never was a bargain with the State.

Sir F. BANBURY: The State has never received a single shilling, nor, so far as I am concerned, has income tax ever been taken away from these people. If we had invested the money as my hon. and learned Friend suggests, the depreciation would be far greater than any benefit that would result.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Even if the State had not had the money actually to use, it has had the benefit of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Sir F. BANBURY: The fund has had the benefit.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I am not considering the amount of it, but in whose pocket it has been. It has been in the pockets of the railway companies beyond any doubt.

Sir F. BANBURY: There is no profit. When we paid these people 4 per cent. we often lent it at 3 per cent. or 3½ per cent., and made a loss.

Sir J. BUTCHER: What I am suggesting is that the railway companies have had this £8,000,000 of money in their coffers, and have been able to make good use of it—I hope good use. I have no doubt my right hon. Friend has made the best use of it he can. We agree they have had this money in their coffers available for any purpose they like. The interest paid has been 4 per cent. If they put forward the view that in pre-War days they paid 4 per cent., and that, although nowadays it is worth 5 per cent. or 6 per cent., and would have to be borrowed at that rate, they will not pay one farthing more than 4 per cent., I am sorry.

Sir F. BANBURY: My company has paid 5 per cent. for the last three years, and another company about which I asked a question this morning has paid 43/4 per cent. All this is fiction about 4 per cent.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I quite realise that the hon. Baronet's company has paid 5 per cent., but I am referring to companies which still pay 4 per cent. I give all credit to my right hon. Friend and his company for paying 5 per cent. I think he might have paid 5½ per cent. The companies I am complaining of for the moment are those which adhere to the bargain, and will not pay a farthing more than 4 per cent. I suggest that, having regard to the present value of money, they ought to pay at least 5 per cent., and possibly 5½ per cent. That would enable larger benefits to be paid. If I am told that the Government cannot force them to pay 5 per cent., instead of 4 per cent., there are means of exercising pressure. I do give the railway companies credit for this, that if the Government and the House of Commons express the opinion that the railway companies ought, generally speaking, to pay 5 or 5½ per cent. for this large sum of money, I feel certain that the companies will do it, And therefore, I hope that the House of Commons will express that opinion. If it is not possible by the means I have suggested to get more funds out of the State for these necessitous cases, the question arises, what is the other remedy? I believe that the shareholders would be
willing to forego a certain amount of their dividends, and I can tell them it would not be large, in order to meet these extreme necessitous cases. I venture to suggest to the directors of the railway companies that if they have got the power, and if they have not, Parliament can give it, that they should put this matter before their shareholders, and tell them what it would cost to help these old servants of the railways. If they did so, I am confident that the railway company shareholders would not object.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): The task which falls to my lot is one which I welcome, because it gives me the opportunity from this Bench of renewing without qualification or withdrawal the sentiments to which I ventured to give expression on the occasion which was referred to at the Caxton Hall a few months ago. It is apparent to everybody that this land is full of hard cases. There are many people who have made money out of this war, and there are many people who have been left stranded and in dire distress as a result of this war. There is one thing quite certain, and that is, that the State cannot with all its resources and with all its sympathy make good to all the individual cases of hardship the losses which they have incurred. What the State can do, and what I hope the State may find itself able to do, is to endeavour to deal with a generous hand with those who have just claims upon it. I hardly know whether I dare use the word sympathy. I was told by a number of the speakers that this word has been misused during the course of the discussion on this topic, and that this question of the unfortunate, superannuated railway servants has become a football and that it has been kicked about, and that going to one department they have been told to go to another, and that in the net result they were simply bruised and wounded for their pains. When I say I sympathise with them, I may be open to the reproach that sympathy is cold, and if I do not say I sympathise with them, then I suppose I must share the criticism which has been addressed to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that he is "a cold-hearted lawyer." There are very few things in this Debate which I regret, but I do regret that expression. It is not
pleasant for a Minister of the Crown to have to stand here and to say "no" to any request which appeals to the kindly-hearted feelings of his fellow men. I do not think the hon. Member who made use of that expression with regard to the Home Secretary will do otherwise than regret that he happened to let himself fall into the slip. May I say I regret, too, and I only mention it in passing, the references which have been made to the personal position of the Minister of Transport, who is prevented from being here by ill-health caused by the strain that has come upon him by devotion to the State during the whole period of the War and since, and having said that I say no more about it. The character, the work, the eminence and the zeal of the Minister of Transport need no advocate from the Parliamentary Secretary, and I regret that the matter has been introduced.
10.0 P.M.
On behalf of the Government, I welcome this Motion most heartily, and I offer no objection to its terms. It gives me, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, an opportunity, which I will take, of endeavouring to put this House fully into possession of the facts, and not only the House, but that great body of men, the old railway servants, who have served in one of those great, I will not call it State Departments, but one of those great public services which tend to the comfort and convenience and prosperity and happiness of us all. I want them to understand exactly where this question stands. Incidentally, I am not sorry in this House to note the presence of some railway directors. I should like to be quite sure that they, too, quite fully understand the position. I am not sure that they do, or if they do, I am rather disposed to think that they think I do not. However, we will try to clear the ground. Let us consider what exactly is the constitution and nature of these superannuation funds. From the year 1853 to to the year 1906, Parliament passed a series of private Acts of Parliament at the instance of the railway companies to constitute superannuation funds. The kind of fund that has been dealt with in Debate to-night is the fund relating to the salaried staff, as distinguished from the wage-earning staff, of the railways, and it is that aspect to which I will address myself. What is the reason why Parliament passed those Acts? It was
to the interests of the railway companies and to their clear advantage that they should maintain an efficient staff, and should not have left upon their hands a staff which, through advancing years, would become unable effectively to discharge the delicate and onerous and very careful duties which fall to the lot of railway men. Therefore, the railway companies were minded to say, "We are prepared to pay out of our funds a contribution towards superannuation," and that was generally fixed in the old days at 2½ per cent. Parliament gave the railway companies a legal right to make that contribution, and, at the same time, gave them the legal right to deduct from the salaries of the workers 2½ per cent., which they could not otherwise deduct, because it would have been a violation of the Truck Acts to have done so, and those two sums, making 5 per cent. upon the general salary list, constituted the superannuation fund. It was no longer railway company money, it was money which became friendly society money, and the money was vested in trustees, and the management of the organisation was vested in committees, and the committees had to propound rules which got statutory sanction, and under those rules they had to say what benefit they could afford to give to the annuitants.
In the course of time those funds were found to be, without exception, I think, actuarially unsound, and I doubt if to-day there is a single fund which, judged from the actuarial basis, is competent to meet the sums which are a charge upon it in respect to the annuitants who come on the funds. How has that been dealt with in the past? Sometimes it has been dealt with by the railway committees increasing the percentage which they had paid into the fund, but a more satisfactory way, which got rid of all actuarial differences, was this, that the railway companies guaranteed in many cases that instead of paying their contribution, they would pay such a sum as was necessary year by year in order to secure to the annuitants the monies which they were promised according to the rules. When I say they were promised according to the rules, they were promised m the sense in which every annuitant is promised something in a friendly society; that means that it depends entirely upon the
financial stability of the fund to which he has contributed. That is exactly the nature of this undertaking, and the trustees invested some of their money, roughly £8,000,000, with the railway companies, with which they were associated, and the railway companies in those days, wishing to deal quite generously with this fund, gave a little more interest than the current rate of interest, and although I hold no brief for the railway companies, which perhaps they will realise before I sit down, we must be quite fair. I have had extracted for me figures to show what the effect has been of investment in these railway company funds as distinguished from investment in Consols, and if you deal with a superannuation fund which had £10,000 a year to invest for the last 25 years and which had invested it in Consols year by year at the current rate of Consols, and had taken the interest, the result would have been that that superannuation fund would be in funds to-day to the extent of £136,515, by having invested with the railway companies as distinguished from having put its money into Consols. That being so, let me see whether under any circumstances apart from railway control there could have been any payment for the State. Assume for the present purpose that the War had not come, that these funds had fallen into a state of insolvency actuarially, could any claim whatever have been established against the State? Could anybody have come and said there was either legal or moral or charitable claim against the State? I think the answer is perfectly obvious, that no such thing could have arisen.
Therefore one is driven to consider this matter. Has anything which the State has done, or which it intends to do, in any way hampered or interfered with these funds or with the right of the railway companies, if they are so minded—and it is a matter for them—to help these funds, or, preferably, to help the old annuitants who are at present entitled to receive their allowance from these funds. I say at once that there is nothing at all in the Railway Agreement with the State relating to finance that constitutes any charge upon the State in respect of these matters. One of my hon. Friends said that if the State had not intervened, justice would have been done by the railway companies, and my hon. and gallant
Friend who moved this resolution tonight, and the hon. Gentleman who seconded it—and may I say without impertinence that the railwaymen are very fortunate indeed in their advocates in this House to-night, and in the sympathetic, clear, and impressive way in which their case has been presented to the House to-night—they suggested that something the State had done had in some way interfered with these funds. On behalf of the Government, I challenge that. When the Government assumed control, in August, 1914, for war purposes, of the railways, it began to discuss the financial conditions under which the relationship between the companies and the State should exist, and there was a series of communications passed from time to time, as circumstances arose, never collated into one document which one could lay upon the Table of the House and say, "This is the financial agreement between the railway companies and the State," but it is not very difficult to extract from these documents exactly what it was. The main item was this, that the Government guaranteed to the railway companies their net revenue from working their railways on a standard year, taking for that purpose, speaking generally, the year 1913, and they allowed the companies to deduct, before arriving at that result, their working expenses, and amongst working expenses they allowed the companies to debit their percentage contribution, on the 1913 basis, to the Superannuation Fund. But the companies were left in charge of their own finances. Let me at once, if I may, relieve the mind of the hon. Baronet who represents the City of York (Sir J. Butcher) as to the benefit, if benefit it be, of this £8,000,000 at 4 per cent. All the railway companies profits on capital, their rent from their property, their dividends from investment—all these matters were left to the railway companies, and if it be an advantage—my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) says it has not, in fact, been an advantage—but if it be an advantage, I am in entire agreement with my right hon. Friend that it is not an advantage which has accrued to the State in any sense at all, nor could it have been.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I am really asking for information. Supposing 5 per cent. had been paid on this £8,000,000 instead of
4 per cent., would the burden of the additional 1 per cent. have fallen on the State or the railway companies?

Mr. NEAL: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. It would have fallen upon the railway companies. The nature of the financial control is shown by this fact, that although you have State control, and they were only guaranteed the 1913 revenue, most of the companies have been able to contribute to their dividends a little from their other resources. Therefore, so far as this question of the £8,000,000 is concerned, I ask the House to leave it out of its consideration. Then it is said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken certain moneys by way of Income Tax to which he was not entitled, either by law, or has taken them unjustly. I will deal with either point of view. Everyone knows, that is so far as we can understand Income Tax law at all, that if a person is in receipt of an income which has been charged at the source with income tax, it is open to the person, if he is below the Income Tax line, to claim a rebate in respect of it.
Representations have been made by some of the hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate that, by the mysterious operations of the Income Tax law, there has been deducted from some of these funds a sum which, I think, spread over a period of years, is said to be about £115,000, the absolute figure is not material for the argument. I will only say this; that it is not a question that in the least degree affects the problem we are considering. If it is illegally deducted in the sense of deduction without authority or the sanction of the Board, then that is a matter which can be adjusted by methods with which the hon. and learned Gentleman and I are both familiar. If it has been taken by a law which in its operation is considered unjust, then all I will say is this—and it would be presumptuous and improper if I said more—that if those who are interested in this matter will be good enough to give me their facts and figures in detail I will call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to them, for him to take such action as he may think right and proper under the circumstances.
It has been said that some of these veteran railway servants, men whom we all admire, and with whom we entrusted
our safety from time to time, might have become old-age pensioners, and consequently a charge upon the State. Surely that is an unsound argument. Everyone who by thrift and industry, and the qualities we all admire because of their comparative rarity to-day, has put himself in a position of having an income that relieves him from the old-age pension is within the same category precisely as the men about whom we are talking to-night. It is said they came into the exclusion scheme of the National Health Insurance. But that was always a matter not for the State. The State did not excuse them. It was a matter where the employer, with the consent of his men, came to the view that benefits could be offered within their own sphere of action equivalent to those of the National Health Insurance, and on that they were entitled to apply for exemption from the scheme. Many corporations, and many large employers, have taken precisely the same step. To come now and say that because exemption has been obtained from the scheme for purposes of our own that entitles us to an advantage in this matter, is surely stretching the argument beyond a fair limit. Therefore, I respectfully suggest to the House that no case whatever can be made out by the men themselves directly against the State. May I say, too, that if this financial argument were sound, and even if it were a fact that those sums, or any of them, could be recovered, I suggest to my hon. Friends who moved this Resolution that they would not get the benefits for the present annuitants; they would go to swell the benefits for future annuitants. Anything you do now towards increasing the benefits of these funds, and to put them in a solvent condition actuarily, ought to aim at securing what I would very much prefer to see: that the railway companies themselves should preserve the good-will out of the extra reserves still at their disposal, and do something in the sense of guaranteeing the payments which fall due upon these funds. This is, I think, a better plan rather than endeavouring to deal with it by other methods. Again, the funds are in the nature of a friendly society managed by a committee appointed by the companies and representatives of the staff, and it is a question to-day whether we can get from the rail-
Way companies sympathy and assistance in order to make that fund what it ought to be, that is perfectly solvent. In 1900 the Board of Trade appointed a Departmental Committee to consider this very question, and I would advise hon. Members who can find the time to read the Report of that Committee. Some very direct questions have been put to me to-night. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Sir W. Rutherford) asked whether there was a case for inquiry. I say there is a case for inquiry, but I do not want an inquiry from this point of view—that while the grass is growing the horse is starving. If I were to say to the House of Commons that the Minister of Transport will appoint a Committee of inquiry, your answer would be, "Yes, this is another method of delaying, and playing, and toying with this question at the expense of these poor people." I was asked if the Minister of Transport would leave the railway companies to deal with this matter in their own way. My answer is, "Yes, without qualification at all."

Major BARNETT: Will the Government allow the railway companies to charge that as a working expense?

Mr. NEAL: We have lost sight now of the annuitants. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!" and "Special pleading."] I do not wish to occasion any heat, and I hope my hon. Friends will aquit me of any desire to suggest that we have lost sympathy for the annuitants. I want the case of these men dealt with now without interference by the Government, and I want them dealt with by the railway companies concerned. If the railway companies, having done that, come to the conclusion that they have within the terms of the financial arrangement between the railway companies and the Government a right to claim that, as a working expense, that question can be discussed, and settled as many other questions have been settled between the Government and the railway company.
But let there be no mistake. I decline to-night to say that having read these financial arrangements with the railway companies carefully, and having taken the best advice available, I decline to say that I can encourage the railway companies to believe that that is an expense within the arrangement or which the State ought to
bear. One other suggestion was that the Minister of Transport could give directions under the statute that this payment should be made, but that really is not so. I have in my hand the statute, and under Section 3 the Minister can direct as to the salaries, wages and remuneration and conditions of employment of persons employed on or in connection with the undertaking, but he has no power to direct the railway companies how to deal with annuitants upon the Superannuation Fund. I hope that no dispute, possible, actual or potential as to who ought to bear any charge that there is on this matter, will in the slightest degree interfere with the railway companies taking such action as they may think right in reference to these annuitants, and if the result of the discussion to-night should be to add some small modicum of comfort to men who served the railways well, I shall be only too glad.
I have only one other point I desire to raise and that is that these men have never been Civil Servants at any time. A comparison was drawn in their favour as against the police and other Civil Servants, and it was suggested that they were entitled to greater sympathy because their retiring age was late and they therefore had less chance of obtaining employment for themselves during their retiring years. On the other hand, I would call attention to the fact that the police pensions and the pensions of the civil servant are matters with the financing of which the annuitant has no concern whatever. He has a statutory guarantee for his position. The State has to honour that position, whether it be, as in the case of the civil servant, wholly, or, as in the case of the policeman, shared with the municipality. The right of these men, however, is strictly limited to the solvency of the fund and the benefits secured by it. But I hope it may be found possible to improve it. Any improvement of the fund as such would not meet the case. I think if the railway companies desire to deal with the case they can only do it by establishing a special fund earmarked for the purpose of supplementing the present annuities. If their powers are inadequate for that purpose, we would facilitate an extension and would be only too glad to do so.

Captain BOWYER: As representing a constituency in which are situated the
towns of Wolverton and Bletchley, may I intervene in this Debate in order to appeal to my hon. Friend who last spoke for rather more than the "small modicum of comfort" which he has held out to the House. A tremendous number of my constituents are vitally interested in the subject we have been discussing to-night, and I have received many letters on the question. The last two were from men who had served without blemish on the London and North Western Railway for a period of 50 years. The amount which these men have to live upon cannot possibly afford them the necessaries of life. My experience, indeed, with the hon. Gentleman himself has been that when I write to him I am referred to a company, and when I write to the company I am referred back, either to him or to the Treasury, and to-night, instead of an answer as to who is the proper authority for me, who have these cases at heart, and have them thrown at my head every day, I get the small modicum of comfort that as yet the game of battledore and shuttlecock is not finished. After listening to the interesting speech of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Neal) and of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) the question of finance makes a mere outsider like myself tremble on entering into the Debate at all. But the Government took over the railways at the commencement of the War. At that time railway employees were disgracefully paid, and the disgrace of their pay was reflected in the pensions which they were awarded when their life's work was over. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Neal) says, "Assuming that the War had not come, would there have been any claim against the State?" Possibly not. But he never went on to say, "The War came, and let us deal with the fact."

Mr. NEAL: Yes.

Captain BOWYER: If so, I apologise. My contention is that if the Government took over the control of the railways at the start of the War they also took on the moral obligations incidental to the management and the greatest moral obligations to deal honestly, not as a question of a charitable dole, but as a matter of justice with the men who, had it not been for the War, possibly might have lived on the very inadequate pensions which they had, but because of the War are now in a position, owing to the depreciated value of money of being
utterly unable to live; and if the hon. Gentleman thinks he has given me any answer at all or any guide to the future, as to either what I am to assume or to whom I am to apply in these difficult cases, all I have in very truth is a small modicum of comfort.

Major HILLS: The very close reasoned and lucid speech we have just heard from the hon. Gentleman and one we expected from him, but our admiration was a little tinged with regret in that it appeared to many of us to be a piece of special pleading. He seemed to me to put before him one object only, that of protecting the public purse and Treasury against the demands of the annuitants. All through the speech one heard very little about the annuitants themselves and nothing at all about the obligations of the State towards the annuitants. I will take the history of the superannuation funds in the same terms as the hon. Gentleman. He said, I thought a little unjustly, that they were started by the railway companies for their own benefit.
I do not accept that. They were started by them as wise employers for the benefit of the employé and the benefit of the concern. Trey were put under autonomous control, and were not run as part of the railway, but run by an elected committee independent of the railway. The effect of that was that the committees who were inexperienced and over generous over-spent their income and gave bigger benefits than their subscriptions entitled them to give. Consequently from time to time the companies had to go to their shareholders and get them to pay considerable sums in order to make these funds solvent. In the case of the company with which I am connected, when the War came our very large superannuation fund was practically solvent. I believe it was the only one in the whole kingdom that was practically solvent. That had been accomplished at the cost of extra contributions from shareholders over the contributions of the employés It was brought about by special voluntary contributions agreed to by the shareholders. Then the War came. My hon. Friend asked, "Has the War made any difference?" He said, quite rightly, that if the War had not come nobody would have thought of asking the State for a contribution, and that it would have been a matter for the employers and the
employed to settle between themselves. I agree. There can be no dispute about that. The hon. Gentleman spent a good deal of time in referring to health contributions and old age pensions, but he left out the one outstanding effect of the War—control. He never mentioned the effect of control. I hope to prove that control has changed the whole position. If the companies had been left alone through the War and up to now and had been allowed to charge the Government and the public the full commercial rates they would have been in a very different position. If he came to any meeting of shareholders he would find that the shareholders are blaming the directors rather bitterly for the bargain of 1914 and the standardising of the 1913 dividends.

Mr. NEAL: We did not standardise the 1913 dividends, but the 1913 net revenue.

Major HILLS: That is so, and the shareholders are complaining rather strongly about that bargain, and saying, with a great deal of justice, that if the companies had been left alone and had not made that bargain the shareholders would have been very much better oft. They throw at the head of the chairmen of the companies the case of shipping companies that are not controlled, and transport companies which have made enormous dividends. Control has changed the whole position. The shareholders of the companies, who are mostly small-people depending upon their dividends just as much as the annuitants are depending upon their annuities, ought not to bear the whole of this charge. When we talk of the railway companies paying, that is disguising the issue a bit, because a railway company is not a bottomless purse. It simply represents the collective subscriptions of the shareholders, and any charge which is put upon the railway companies is a charge upon the shareholders. We all agree that you have to do something. I think that you have to do something for this reason: These annuitants were allowed to retire on the certainty of a certain income, and, on the figures prevailing in those days, the income on which they could retire looked quite sufficient for the rest of their lives. Therefore, they had no reason to save. The War has changed all that, and the same income is not now sufficient. Therefore, you have to bring them up to the
pre-war level. After all, is it such a very different thing from war wages? War wages and war bonus are chargeable by the companies as part of working expenses, and, as the Government have granted those war wages and have allowed them to be charged as working expenses, I do not see how they can adopt a different rule for what is in effect deferred war wages for the veterans who have left active service. Unless you get it from them, where can you go? You cannot go to the fund for them. If you charge the fund the increased pensions, first of all you pay these special annuitants more than they are entitled to, and, next, you are going to have the fund bankrupt. My hon. Friend, in the course of his-speech, said that certain Members of the House, and I in particular, had lost sight of the annuitants. If he saw as much of the hardships through which they go as I do, he would not accuse me of losing sight of them. I think the boot is on the other leg. Throughout the whole of his speech, he seemed to lose sight of the annuitants. Cannot he do something? Let him look round the House. There is no division of opinion at all. I do not believe that even my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury), the stern economist, who never minds how much odium he incurs in performing what he believes to be his duty, the stern guardian of the public purse, will stand in the way. I do not think that there is a Member of the House who will not back the Government up if they do this, and I appeal to my hon. Friend before it is too late to take a step which the whole House and the country will welcome.

Colonel YATE: I did not quite understand the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport when he said that we ought to leave entirely out of consideration the question of the £8,000,000, of which the companies get the use at 4 per cent. In India, the State railways and the various other services all have their Provident Funds, and, as the War went on, the subscribers to them agitated greatly that instead of the 4 per cent. that was paid by the Government who had charge of the funds, the proper 5½ per cent. should be paid. I raised the question here and the Secretary of State for India took the subject into consideration. He has now agreed to give a higher rate of interest. I do not know what is the agreement between the railways and the
State; but one or the other or both of them should take this question into consideration and should give the proper rate of interest on the £8,000,000 from the date when the general rate of interest increased. That is an example for the benefit of the hon. Member. I hope that he will bring it to the notice of the Government and of the railway companies and will make some offer by which a proper rate of interest can be given on the funds.

Mr. WATERSON: We have heard several railway directors speak from their point of view, and it was only just that we should hear what they have to say on this all-important question; but I wish to make a few remarks as an ex-railwayman who was engaged on railway work for more than twenty years, and to point out the hardship of the position in which many of these men now find themselves. We have heard from the representative of the Ministry of Transport. I take the opportunity of congratulating him on the excellent way in which he has put his case. But while, with his usual eloquence and exceptional ability, he endeavoured to defend the attitude of the Government and to ask the representatives of the railway companies to do something, he has, like many other Ministers, evaded the real issue and given us nothing in reply. Men have to pay out of their salaries towards the upkeep of this fund. They are not allowed to be voluntary members of that fund. The representatives of the railway companies will agree with me when I say that it is a sort of compulsion. It is a condition of service. They are not allowed to enter the service unless they agree on the salary staff to join the Superannuation Fund, or on the wages staff to join a particular benefit society which caters for the workers section of the service. So far as the Minister of Transport is concerned, it appears that this is not his matter, and it seems to be nobody's matter. So far as the House is concerned, it ought to go to a Division to force this matter. The hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills) said that control altered the position. I was not convinced by his speech that it had altered the position, because the position as it was in 1913 is still guaranteed to the railway companies of this country. That is the agreement which has been arrived at between the Minister of Transport for the Government and the railway companies. Ever since
1910 these men have been paying week after week into the funds of their Superannuation Society. If there has been any advantage, it has been in the interests of the companies, because during the War men have not been retiring at the age of 60 as they did before the War.

Major HILLS: That is not to the benefit of the companies. It is to the benefit of the funds, which have gained substantially.

Mr. WATERSON: I accept that. I should have said "the fund" instead of the company. One of the speakers described one depot where the men in the railway service had been levying themselves 3d. a week to eke out the funds of one who had been superannuated. That is characteristic of the railwaymen. I do not think there is any class which is more patriotic to their fellow men than the railway men are. I see the Home Secretary here, but I will say that they raise large sums by prize draws to try to bring about some benefit to comrades who have fallen into misfortune. There are many of these pensioned men who are in need. About 12 per cent. are getting less than £30 a year. That, at least, ought to be altered at the first opportunity. The figure about income tax has been challenged, but I know one out of the 13 funds which has paid £34,250 during the last six years for income tax. That would go a long way towards alleviating the present situation.
It was my joy and privilege to work among these men for many years. From the railway companies' point of view, there are no more loyal servants than those old worn-out toilers of theirs. From a trade union point of view, or even an anti-trade union point of view, the companies never had a more pliable set of men. The first men to take the wages departments' position are the men attached to the salaried staff. Surely the railway companies in gratitude to these men should give them the right and means not only to exist but to live at the end of their noble service. We have asked the question, who is responsible for them? A deputation went to the Board of Trade and was told it was not their business. The railway companies could not see any way out. The Treasury would not look at them. We have had some sort of
promise from the representative of the Government to-night, but this is not an age of charity; it is a time for justice, and we are bound to do justice to these old men and let them have some of the benefits of the new world and let them live that life that so many young men fought and died to win for them.

Viscount ELVEDEN: I would like to remind the House that the railway companies are suspended in mid-air, not knowing whether they are going to own their property and manage these funds, or whether the Government is going to acquire the property. In any case, I hope this House will have control over whoever manages the railways. This seems to me an opportunity that the House should not miss of passing a Resolution stating that the matter should be considered and dealt with by the Government. It is all very well for the representative of the Government to say that if we had been paying 5 per cent. on the money before the War it would have been the railway companies which would have borne the 1 per cent. above the 4 per cent. As I understand it, we were allowed to include in the working expenses of the railway companies the contributions we were making at that time. That being so, it seems to me that the answer of the Government's representative is not correct. I hope the House will divide and register its opinion that something should be done, so placing on record the fact that the matter should be considered, and considered properly.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I wish to point out to the representative of the Ministry of Transport that if he has the sympathy which he has expressed with the cause of these men, he has a case to put before the Government for allowing this particular expenditure to be treated as an expense of the railway companies. As far as I understand the case a great amount of this money has been invested in a peculiar way, and certainly not in the way that the ordinary capitalist would choose, that is to say, in the form of a loan to the railway companies. If that is so, it is a question whether it is not a loan which is, or in justice ought to be, repayable at the present moment. If the loan is repayable now of course those who are the owners of the fund can get a higher rate of
interest. The companies which have to-repay that loan will have to obtain the money at a higher rate of interest elsewhere, and the result will be that, whether it is the Government who pays or the railway companies or anyone else, the working of the railway companies will cost so much more, as against the tax collector under expenses which are deductable for purposes of tax. I cannot see why there is this feeling on the part of the Government that a further contribution on the part of the railway companies cannot properly and honestly and effectively be treated as an expense deductable for the purpose of tax by the railway companies.

Major BARNETT: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but ME. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question. Debate continued.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Two suggestions have been made—one that the railway companies ought to provide more money, and the other that the State ought to do so. I shall not touch on the first point. On the second point I wish to touch upon an important point which, it seems to me, is being lost sight of altogether, and that is that this problem is only one part of a very much bigger problem. We are told that these men have done excellent service and are suffering hardship, and that the State ought to find money to help them. The other day we were told the same thing with regard to postmen and policemen, and from time to time with regard to sailors and soldiers and Civil servants, and I do not know what other classes. The same sort of argument might be used with regard to investors in friendly societies, many of which have unfortunately come to an end and left the members of them somewhat destitute. The same sort of argument might be used with regard to the wages of those who have retired on very small investments. If we go on dealing with this matter piecemeal it will simply be a question that those who come first and press hardest will get something, and then this House will pull in its horns and say "This has to stop, we cannot go on, it is costing too much." The Government ought to have an enquiry into this whole question to consider how many classes of people there are who have this kind of claim, and what the total cost of meet-
Ing all those cases would be, and whether the country can afford it. Then we can deal with this matter logically and not haphazard by doles to those who are lucky enough to press their claims first.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I very cordially agree with the remarks of the hon. Member who has just spoken. I do not believe there is a single Member in this House who has not heard the claim made on behalf of the railwaymen with the very deepest sympathy, but we have a question of duty to the State as well as duty to the railway-men, and that point has been put, I think, with admirable force by my hon. Friend (Mr. A. Williams). It seems to me that in the whole of this matter we are really embarking on a very dangerous gradient if we deal with this matter bit by bit and piecemeal. It is not only a question of railwaymen and policemen and postmen and civil servants here and there; it is a question of everyone who is living to-day on invested funds when the value of the pound has so absurdly decreased! Over and over again in the course of this Debate we heard references made to the railway companies. There are, I believe, between six and seven hundred thousand railwaymen in receipt of wages and there are eight hundred thousand shareholders ill the railway companies, and as a matter of fact those railway shareholders are in receipt of far smaller incomes than the annuitants on those funds. [HOST. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Yes, I think that is so—

Mr. TURTON: rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the statutory pensions of superannuated railway servants retired before or during the Government control of the railways should be increased to such an extent as will meet the increased cost off living.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

EX-SERVICE MEN'S PROCESSION.

CONFLICT WITH POLICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres-Monsell.]

11.0 P.M.

Mr. ADAMSON: Your ruling in the earlier part of the day, Mr. SPEAKER, prevented me from moving the Adjournment of the House to call attention to the serious trouble which arose in the course of last evening between the discharged and demobilised soldiers and sailors and the police, and I wish to take advantage of the opportunity that; the Adjournment Motion now affords me for the purpose of raising this serious matter. I would not have raised the question at this late hour of the night but for the fact that I consider that the incident of last night is of a very serious, character, and that it requires the attention of the Government at the earliest possible moment. I think that the Government, in not having given serious consideration to the grievance that these men desired to press before the Prime Minister in the course of yesterday afternoon, at a much earlier stage than this, has led to a serious condition of affairs, in a part of London at least. You stated in the course of your ruling, Mr. SPEAKER, that there was no suggestion that the police had acted in any way contrary to orders. I had no intention in seeking the Adjournment of the House to make a charge against the police; I had no information that would justify me in doing anything of the kind. The only thing that I would say in this connection is that it seems to me that someone erred in the course of yesterday afternoon in preventing the deputation from rejoining their companions in the procession and conveying to them the satisfactory assurances which the members of the deputation had been able to get from the Prime Minister's secretary. I believe that if the members of the deputation had been allowed to rejoin their companions in the procession, and been able to convey to them the same satisfactory assurances that had been given to the deputation by the Prime Minister's secretary, there is just the possibility that the regrettable incident of last night would not have occurred. My purpose in moving the adjournment of the House to-night was to point out that,
in my opinion, the regrettable incident of last night was the natural sequence to the dismissal of so many of the demobilised soldiers and sailors from Government employ at Woolwich and other Government centres, and to urge the necessity for steps being taken to provide them with work before a far more serious disaster occurred than the happening of last night. A fortnight ago we had all kinds of charges made against the trade unions of the country for the treatment of discharged and demobilised soldiers and sailors. Even the representative of the Government on that occasion, to my mind, m a very light-hearted way took part in the criticism that was made against the trade unions. I do not know whether his intention was to cover up the shortcomings of the Government or not in this connection.
Be that as it may, the Government's turn has undoubtedly come, because the incident of last night, without a shadow of doubt, is traceable to the fact that a considerable number of employés have been discharged from the Government factory at Woolwich, and up to the present no work has been found for them. These men, rightly or wrongly, think that the Government has a responsibility for finding them employment. I have every sympathy with them in that idea. Those men were given all sorts of promises as to what would be done for them in return for the valuable services which they have rendered to the country in the course of the last five years. The time has come for these promises to be redeemed. Ex-Service men are looking anxiously to the Government for the "delivery of the goods." What is standing in the way of the Government meeting the anticipations of the ex-Service men?

Mr. HURD: Trade unions.

An HON. MEMBER: Rubbish!

Mr. ADAMSON: What is standing in the way of those promises being redeemed? The policy of the Government in refusing to use the national factories for peace-time production. The reason, I believe, is because they have given a pledge to their supporters that they will not enter into competition with private enterprise. I know something of what I am speaking. It so happens that I am a member of the Advisory Committee in
connection with Woolwich Arsenal. I was a member of the Sub-Committee of Inquiry. My colleague, the Member for West Ham, and myself made certain recommendations as to the future use of these factories. These were turned down on the ground that the Government could not allow these national factories to enter into competition with private enterprise. In our opinion there you have the chief reason for the trouble last night. We believe that we have only seen the beginning of these troubles. These men are organising themselves, according to our information, and will organise themselves to a greater extent with a view to their influence being exercised in a more palpable way. I would urge the Home Secretary to convey to the Members of the Government the necessity for steps to be taken at an early date for employment to be found for these men. There is no lack of orders for things such as could be turned out at Woolwich and other Government factories. The country's industries are hungering for raw and other material, such as railway wagons, locomotives, etc. There is the greatest necessity that this matter should be taken up, not only to provide material, and so enable us to get back to normal conditions, but to enable the Government to redeem their promise, and the country's promise, to the men who fought the battles of the country, and who were told that their places would be kept open for them; that they would be living in a new world. I hope these men will not be disappointed—

Earl WINTERTON: The Amalgamated Society of Engineers!

Mr. ADAMSON: I would urge upon the Government the necessity of taking steps to redeem their promises, and to fulfil their responsibilities by finding these men work.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I had private notice to-day of, a question from the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to whether I had any statement to make as to what happened yesterday between the police and the processionists. I gave my answer. Then I was asked by the right hon. Gentleman if I would at once set up an inquiry into the conduct of the police.

Mr. ADAMSON: dissented.

Mr. SHORTT: Yes, I was so asked.

Mr. ADAMSON: I never asked for an inquiry into the conduct of the police.

Mr. SHORTT: I may be wrong, but my recollection is that my right hon. Friend asked for an inquiry into the action of the police. If it was not that, what was it? [An HON. MEMBER: "The conduct of the Government!"] It was connected with the trouble that took place on the south side of Westminster Bridge yesterday.

Mr. ADAMSON: It was an inquiry into the whole of the circumstances which led up to the regrettable occurrence.

Mr. SHORTT: That was a skirmish between the police and a number of processionists. That is how it strikes most people. I replied "No," because, as I aid, I had no allegations made against the conduct of the police. Then my right hon. Friend did not say "It is not the police; it is the Government that I am attacking,"—not for one moment. He let my answer go, but I said that I would not order an inquiry.

Mr. ADAMSON: Mr. Speaker prevented me.

Mr. SPEAKER: I certainly understood that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adamson) was complaining of the conduct of the police. I said that the police had orders, and, as far as I knew, they were carrying out their orders.

Mr. SHORTT: Then notice is sent that this question is going to be raised, not to the Prime Minister who has been conducting these negotiations, not to the Ministry of Munitions or the Ministry of Transport or anybody connected with the economic and industrial side of the question, but to the Home Secretary whose sole connection with it is his relation to the police. That was the position I have come down to defend. I came down expecting that some charges were going to be made against the conduct of the police, and that in the words of a telegram from the people who organised this procession, shown me by one of my hon. Friends, "the conduct of the police was that of Huns." Now what do we find? No attack upon the police at all. That has been specially repudiated by my right hon. Friend. But there is an admission that there had been some conduct on the part of the processionists that required
explanation, and his explanation for their conduct was that the Government had not kept their pledge.
So far from any attack upon the police, they have admittedly acted correctly right through, but there is an admission that there was some conduct upon the part of the processionists which required excuse and explanation, and that is the basis for the attack upon the Government, an attack which the right hon. Gentleman must have known he was going to make, and he has never sent notice to one single Member of the Cabinet who knows of these negotiations, and who could have answered all his allegations, but he has left it to me, and I am concerned with the conduct of the police, and with that only. So far as any charges have been made, the one charge against the police is, that, if they had only allowed the delegation to come back to their companions, they could have explained what happened at Downing Street, and then no mischief would have occurred. That is the only allegation against anyone connected with the police. What is the fact? When the procession was stopped at Westminster Bridge a delegation was allowed to go to Downing Street. It went to Downing Street and returned. It was met by the Chief Constable who escorted it through the police cordon and put its members among their own followers. They were specially asked if they were satisfied, and they expressed to him their satisfaction with what had occurred at Downing Street. They were asked to tell their friends what had happened. We are told that the procession were not as satisfied as the deputation were, and then the trouble arose. You cannot blame the police for that. We all agree that it is very hard on men to be out of work, and that everything possible should be done to obtain work for those who are in that position. You cannot have demobilisation of great industrial concerns like munition works without people being thrown out of work. You cannot keep them on. Everybody here is shrieking for economy. Is it suggested that we should keep on expensive munition works and run them at a loss under any circumstances. I am not in a position to-night, and I did not expect it, I had no notice, to go into all the details of what occurred in Woolwich. It would
not be fair to ask me to do so. I do say it is a great satisfaction to me, and it must be to the whole House, that the conduct of the police was not made a matter of reproach, and that in spite of what occurred earlier in the afternoon—in the light of the Debate and further knowledge and further information it has to be admitted that the police did their duty, and did it well. I am pleased indeed to be able to find that that is the attitude of the House towards that body. I can at least say this. Everybody in the House, and, in spite of all suggestions to the contrary, the Government included, are only too anxious to get work for these men. We want nobody to be out of work. I do not intend to indulge in recriminations. If I chose I might say as much about the trade unions. [HOT. MEMBEBS: "Say it."] I might say perhaps twice as much, and it would be twice as true, but I do not want to do it to-night.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: interrupted.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. SHORTT: I am not sorry this point has been raised. Although I am not able to go into the details of the negotiations, I do know that there is a strong desire on the part of every Member of this House, the Government included, to get work for all these men, but you cannot do it. It is impossible. You cannot carry through enormous national transactions like demobilisation—demobilisation of the Army as well as industrial works—without causing suffering. We do all we can to try and minimise that suffering as far as is in our power. We are doing it, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is so. We may fail in many respects, as others would in other respects. There is no super-human creature in this House who would not fail somewhere. But we are doing our best, and shall continue to do it. I am very glad indeed that I have not been called upon to defend the police from any attack; I am relieved of that task. But I take this opportunity of assuring my right hon. Friend that he is mistaken if he thinks, or if anybody thinks, that the Government are not fully alive to the hardships of the demobilised men from industrial works. We have done and are doing our best and shall continue to do so to secure them work.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why a procession was allowed to accompany the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley to this House yesterday afternoon while the procession of Woolwich discharged men was not allowed to come here?

Mr. SHORTT: There was no procession, so far as I know, accompanying the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley. [An HON. MEMBER: "A rabble!"] I do not know that. It was well-known trade unionists welcoming my right hon. Friend. There was no such thing as a procession—an ordered, regulated procession, with which the police could deal. The police did deal with the people and kept the streets absolutely clear, and it was only at the first moment in Cavendish Square at the start and at the last moment in Palace Yard that there was any trouble. The two cases are not identical.

Mr. LAWSON: It seems to be assumed by some hon. Members that members of trade unions have never been soldiers. It is usually assumed in this House at any rate. I speak to-night as an ex-soldier and a trade unionist. I think the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adamson) this afternoon was not any complaint against the police, but that the Government, by its policy, has inevitably led to this situation yesterday and will evidently be driven into the same situation on future occasions if the same policy-is maintained. It was advertised for days before in the Press that this procession was coming to the House of Commons as the result of these notices being delivered. Evidently no steps were taken to meet it.

Mr. SHORTT: They were specially warned by the police at Woolwich and by the Superintendent who accompanied them the whole way that they would not be allowed to cross Westminster Bridge. They knew that perfectly well before they started.

Mr. LAWSON: That may be so, but there was no intimation given to the men who had received notices that their notices were going to be withdrawn. Immediately the procession arrived, a deputation was let through to see the Prime Minister, and as I understand the whole question is settled, the men are given some guarantee at least of extended work, and they go back to carry that news to the men concerned it would seem to me
that if you want anything nowadays you must have a demonstration, and as soon as you have a demonstration, which inevitably leads to a conflict, the Government gives way and accepts the position which they ought to have accepted before the procession took place. It is a serious state of things when men who were promised a new country by members of the Government, a new heaven and a new earth, suddenly find that, having fought for their country, they have not the right to work in that country. We are constantly lectured upon the increase of output. Even when men desire to take part in that increased output, and in building up the nation's industrial life, they have not that opportunity. Not only has this conflict taken place, but other conflicts will take place unless the Government get a settled line of policy on the question of employment. Surely the least thing that the Government can do for the men who have fought and suffered for the country is to
get a settled policy upon the question of employment in order that these men may not only live as decent citizens, but have an opportunity of contributing to the country's wellbeing. Speaking generally, it is of no purpose whatever that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House should be constantly throwing stones at small sections of the trades unionists. That may seem all right here. It may pass muster for party purposes in this House, but it has no effect whatever on the great mass of unemployed men and the great mass of ex-soldiers in this country. Immediately you score your debating point, the next day you find you have instances of this kind, and throughout the length and breadth of the land there is dissatisfaction.

It being half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Eleven o'clock.